Recipient

Church of England

First report 9 Jul 2021•Latest report 9 Jul 2021

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 0%
Concerns addressed: 0
Stated actions: 0

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found

0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Church of England linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

9 Jul2021
Inner North London
Concerns raised17
1. Failure to exercise sufficient scrutiny of allegations and obtain their details and source
2. Failure to take responsibility for coherent evidence-based process decisions
3. Failure to ensure accurate and complete cross-organisation safeguarding communications
1. Failure to list and verify allegations before referral
2. Failure to provide allegations promptly to the person concerned
3. Failure to clarify the purpose of safeguarding meetings
4. Insufficiently proactive pastoral support
5. Failure to explore the meaning and source of disclosures
6. Failure to use a safeguarding meeting to discuss allegations
7. Failure to obtain distinct, sourced allegation statements
8. Failure to set out allegations and their sources plainly before prolonged investigation
9. Failure to progress safeguarding investigations promptly and independently when external engagement is absent
10. Failure to obtain or document decisions about required legal advice
11. Failure to establish the meaning and source of a key allegation
12. Failure to correct known inaccurate allegation records
13. Failure to define the safeguarding purpose and route information to the appropriate professionals
14. Failure to identify and correct copied allegation errors
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Alan Howard Foster Griffin · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Alan Howard Foster Griffin died by suicide at home on 8 November 2020 while under investigation by his former and current dioceses. The principal concerns were systemic and individual failings in the handling of unverified allegations, including inadequate verification, inaccurate and incomplete information-sharing, unclear responsibility, and failure to seek recommended legal advice.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to exercise sufficient scrutiny of allegations and obtain their details and source
Wider context from the report
“1. The safeguarding team of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster did not exercise sufficient professional scrutiny of the allegations that came to them from the Anglican safeguarding team. This was partly because they gained a false sense of security from the fact that the allegations came from the Church of England. However, there was more that could have been done to establish the exact nature of the allegations and whether these were credible. The Catholic safeguarding team asked for disclosure from the Anglican safeguarding team and most particularly for the source of the allegations. When they did not receive either of these, they should have insisted. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to take responsibility for coherent evidence-based process decisions
Wider context from the report
“5. The head of operations said in evidence that he was simply giving information, it was not his decision what information was recorded, rather he left that to the archdeacon and the director of HR & safeguarding. The archdeacon told me that it was not his call to decide what was and what was not gossip, and so he had asked the director of HR & safeguarding to be present at subsequent meetings with the head of operations. The director of HR & safeguarding told me that it was not for her, but for the safeguarding professionals to make an independent assessment and to decide what allegations were investigated and how. The safeguarding manager said that she was invited to the meetings simply as a note taker and that she had recorded “Allegation is this person has HIV and with knowledge continued to sleep with people” because that is what the archdeacon wrote in his note of the first meeting with the head of operations, not because she had made an independent assessment of this. The archdeacon said that the first note was inaccurate, he knew it was inaccurate because it was hastily taken down, and that is why he had asked for a formal notetaker to attend subsequent meetings. However, the safeguarding manager said that nobody told her this, and on receipt of the document describing the allegation that he knew had not been made, the archdeacon did not correct the document, nor did the director of HR & safeguarding. The former police officer investigating said that the validity of allegations should be assessed, but that he was not at the original meetings. The safeguarding adviser said that decisions about how to proceed, such as engaging an investigator, had already been made by the time she was brought in to take action. Thus nobody took responsibility for steering the direction of the process from start to finish and for making coherent, reasoned, evidence based decisions that made sense in the context of the information that was available to the team as a whole. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to ensure accurate and complete cross-organisation safeguarding communications
Wider context from the report
“8. The safeguarding adviser who was tasked by the safeguarding manager with dealing with investigation, thought that an approach should be made to Father Griffin by a member of the clergy on a welfare basis. She told me she had thought that the church’s involvement should simply be about supporting a vulnerable man. She emailed the archdeacon asking him if the clergy could make an approach to Father Griffin, but such an approach did not take place, and so she herself spoke briefly to Father Griffin to make initial contact. During this brief conversation, Father Griffin explained that he was now a Roman Catholic priest, so the safeguarding adviser sent an email to her Roman Catholic safeguarding counterpart. The email disclosed Father Griffin’s HIV status; it was inaccurate as to detail; it did not properly represent her view of the allegations; and it did not include reference to the fact that Father Griffin had attempted suicide when diagnosed as HIV+ approximately nine years earlier. She told me that the errors she made within this email were the consequence of her concurrent very difficult personal circumstances, in the context of short staffing. The email was seen by the archdeacon and the safeguarding manager before it was sent, but neither made any substantive amendment. Insufficient regard was paid to ensuring scrupulous accuracy, and completeness of relevant information, in the communication with a different organisation. There seemed almost to be a lack of recognition that the Roman Catholic Church was a different organisation. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to list and verify allegations before referral
Wider context from the report
“2. The head of operations’ allegations were never clearly listed at the outset and appropriately verified with him. He told me in evidence that he had never alleged that Father Griffin had abused children. He said that he had never alleged that Father Griffin had sex with minors. And he said that he had never alleged that Father Griffin had sex whilst HIV+ and believing himself to be an infection risk. His recollection was confirmed by others who were present. Nevertheless, these were the allegations that were passed on to the Roman Catholic (RC) Church by the CofE. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide allegations promptly to the person concerned
Wider context from the report
“3. Father Griffin then asked to know the allegations against him before he attended another meeting with the Catholic safeguarding team. The safeguarding team felt that the information was not theirs to give because it came from the Church of England, but Father Griffin should have been provided with a note of the allegations promptly. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to clarify the purpose of safeguarding meetings
Wider context from the report
“1. The purpose of the meetings with the head of operations was not made clear to all who attended. The 42 entries ranged from descriptions of past convictions that had been dealt with and recorded, through current safeguarding concerns that might or might not have been acted upon, to what witnesses described as gossip. These 42 entries were not accompanied by signed statements setting out distinct allegations. The origin of the information in the entries was in places obvious and factual, but in places entirely nebulous. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficiently proactive pastoral support
Wider context from the report
“4. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster was unaware of Father Griffin’s attempted suicide nine years earlier. However, it could still have been more proactive than it was in ensuring that he had maximum pastoral support. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to explore the meaning and source of disclosures
Wider context from the report
“4. The archdeacon told me that he had not wanted to ask questions of the head of operations in the meetings, even to check the source of the information he gave, for fear of interrupting his flow. The archdeacon was emphatic that he wanted the head of operations to get everything out. The way the archdeacon described the head of operations’ brain dump meetings, seemed to me more akin to a description of the disclosures of a victim, rather than the recollections of a twenty year careerer by a retiree. The archdeacon seemed to envisage that others might interview the head of operations at a later stage, but nobody thought that was needed. Thus nobody fully explored what the head of operations actually meant when he volunteered his recollections; what he was actually alleging; and the source for his disclosures and any allegations. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to use a safeguarding meeting to discuss allegations
Wider context from the report
“2. The Catholic safeguarding team met with Father Griffin on 23 June 2020 to discuss his DBS check. That would have been an ideal opportunity to discuss the Church of England allegations that would have shortened the process considerably and the opportunity was lost. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to obtain distinct, sourced allegation statements
Wider context from the report
“1. The purpose of the meetings with the head of operations was not made clear to all who attended. The 42 entries ranged from descriptions of past convictions that had been dealt with and recorded, through current safeguarding concerns that might or might not have been acted upon, to what witnesses described as gossip. These 42 entries were not accompanied by signed statements setting out distinct allegations. The origin of the information in the entries was in places obvious and factual, but in places entirely nebulous. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to set out allegations and their sources plainly before prolonged investigation
Wider context from the report
“10. Thus, the allegations against Father Griffin passed on to the Roman Catholic Church were supported by no complainant, no witness and no accuser. There was no concern raised by a victim of abuse, by a child, parent, teacher, youth worker or other witness. No person said they had been the subject of or had witnessed any concerning behaviour, save that Father Griffin had been seen to have dinner with men in an Italian restaurant, for which he might have paid the bill. The CofE safeguarding adviser finally tasked with dealing with the matter did not consider that there was any safeguarding concern. And yet on this basis, Alan Griffin found himself to be under investigation for over a year, without ever having the allegations and their source plainly set out for him. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to progress safeguarding investigations promptly and independently when external engagement is absent
Wider context from the report
“5. The Catholic safeguarding team volunteered at inquest that they did not deal with the investigation into Father Griffin promptly and they apologised for this. The very first telephone call was placed to the Catholic safeguarding adviser on 30 October 2019. The delay was therefore significant and it was harmful. This was in part because the Catholic safeguarding team were waiting for the engagement of the Anglican safeguarding team to enable a joint approach to be taken. When it was clear that such engagement was not forthcoming (whether for reasons of sickness or anything else), the Catholic safeguarding team should have gone back to the local authority designated officer (the LADO) and recommended that they continue without further input from the Church of England. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to obtain or document decisions about required legal advice
Wider context from the report
“7. The safeguarding manager recommended in the same document that legal advice should be sought before proceeding, but her recommendation was not acted upon. There was no record made of why this was not acted upon and the director of HR & safeguarding told me that legal advice should have been sought. There seemed no overarching, coherent strategy. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to establish the meaning and source of a key allegation
Wider context from the report
“3. What the head of operations did say in his meetings in 2019 was that Father Griffin had told him he had “used rent boys”, which the head of operations understood to mean he had visited adult male prostitutes. The archdeacon emphasised the importance of this being Father Griffin’s phrase. The phrase appeared repeatedly throughout 2019/20 church documents relating to Father Griffin’s actions. Notwithstanding the view expressed to me by the head of operations that the phrase related to visiting adult male prostitutes, it formed the basis of the allegation of sex with minors. I put it to the director of HR & safeguarding that it is an unusual phrase to hear in 2021, and yet the term rent boys appeared elsewhere in the Two Cities report. She told me that the head of operations had used the phrase from start to finish in the meetings that led to the entries in respect of the 42 members of the clergy in London & Westminster. However, she said in court that, as there was no record anywhere that the head of operations had described Father Griffin himself using this term, she now concluded that the head of operations had not actually said this. I recalled the head of operations on the last day of inquest to ask if it was possible that this had in fact been his own term rather than Father Griffin’s. He immediately said yes, the term was his term and Father Griffin had not used it. He said that Father Griffin had never used the term rent boys. He thought that Father Griffin was generous with hospitality and paid for meals out and perhaps he had misinterpreted that. He said that Father Griffin had never actually said that he had paid for sex. Yet in an investigation lasting over a year, the head of operations did not volunteer these details and nobody obtained them from him. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to correct known inaccurate allegation records
Wider context from the report
“5. The head of operations said in evidence that he was simply giving information, it was not his decision what information was recorded, rather he left that to the archdeacon and the director of HR & safeguarding. The archdeacon told me that it was not his call to decide what was and what was not gossip, and so he had asked the director of HR & safeguarding to be present at subsequent meetings with the head of operations. The director of HR & safeguarding told me that it was not for her, but for the safeguarding professionals to make an independent assessment and to decide what allegations were investigated and how. The safeguarding manager said that she was invited to the meetings simply as a note taker and that she had recorded “Allegation is this person has HIV and with knowledge continued to sleep with people” because that is what the archdeacon wrote in his note of the first meeting with the head of operations, not because she had made an independent assessment of this. The archdeacon said that the first note was inaccurate, he knew it was inaccurate because it was hastily taken down, and that is why he had asked for a formal notetaker to attend subsequent meetings. However, the safeguarding manager said that nobody told her this, and on receipt of the document describing the allegation that he knew had not been made, the archdeacon did not correct the document, nor did the director of HR & safeguarding. The former police officer investigating said that the validity of allegations should be assessed, but that he was not at the original meetings. The safeguarding adviser said that decisions about how to proceed, such as engaging an investigator, had already been made by the time she was brought in to take action. Thus nobody took responsibility for steering the direction of the process from start to finish and for making coherent, reasoned, evidence based decisions that made sense in the context of the information that was available to the team as a whole. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to define the safeguarding purpose and route information to the appropriate professionals
Wider context from the report
“9. The safeguarding adviser who contacted the Roman Catholic Church told me that she viewed Father Griffin’s situation purely in terms of illness and supporting a vulnerable man. She said she did not consider that there was any substance whatsoever to the allegations. However, she was a safeguarding officer, and she contacted another safeguarding officer, disclosing confidential information, so this was treated as a safeguarding referral. If it was not meant to be a safeguarding referral, then the professionals dealing with the matter were the wrong people. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Church of England; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to identify and correct copied allegation errors
Wider context from the report
“6. As I have indicated, the archdeacon told me that he placed great weight on the information given by the head of operations that Father Griffin had told the head of operations that he had used rent boys. However, regarding the record of “concerns of possible child exploitation”, the safeguarding manager told me that she had made a mistake, and that this phrase had been mistakenly copied and pasted from another entry. She did not believe that there was any evidence of sexual activity with a minor, nor any reason to investigate that, but her typographical error was never noted and corrected, either by her or by anyone else. ”
Open source report

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised17

Failure to exercise sufficient scrutiny of allegations and obtain their details and source

Failure to take responsibility for coherent evidence-based process decisions

Failure to ensure accurate and complete cross-organisation safeguarding communications

Failure to list and verify allegations before referral

Failure to provide allegations promptly to the person concerned

Failure to clarify the purpose of safeguarding meetings

Insufficiently proactive pastoral support

Failure to explore the meaning and source of disclosures

Failure to use a safeguarding meeting to discuss allegations

Failure to obtain distinct, sourced allegation statements

Failure to set out allegations and their sources plainly before prolonged investigation

Failure to progress safeguarding investigations promptly and independently when external engagement is absent

Failure to obtain or document decisions about required legal advice

Failure to establish the meaning and source of a key allegation

Failure to correct known inaccurate allegation records

Failure to define the safeguarding purpose and route information to the appropriate professionals

Failure to identify and correct copied allegation errors