Boundary Lines in Church Safeguarding

A recent employment tribunal ruling involving a former assistant curate and the Diocese of Lichfield has cast a light on the operational boundaries of church safeguarding.

The tribunal dismissed all claims of whistle-blowing detriment and disability discrimination brought by the Reverend David Green, whilst delivering a direct critique of his attempts to stretch the professional remit of a Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser (DSA).

At the centre of the ruling was Mr Green’s persistent insistence on framing personal grievances as safeguarding issues. Rooted in interpersonal fallout during his training at Ripon College, Cuddesdon, Mr Green expected the Lichfield DSA, Neil Spiring, to act effectively as a private investigator to clear his name.

The tribunal observed that whilst Mr Spiring offered commendable support, Mr Green never presented a genuine safeguarding concern regarding risks to children or vulnerable adults. Instead, his demands created an unusual, highly time-consuming addition to the DSA’s workload, culminating in a warning that the police would be contacted if the relentless correspondence did not cease.

This scenario mirrors wider concerns highlighted in Professor Alexis Jay’s landmark report, The Future of Church Safeguarding. Professor Jay cautioned against using safeguarding mechanisms to address general conduct issues, warning that such practices represent a wasteful misuse of capacity when officers already face unmanageable workloads.

The case also illustrates an ongoing debate over institutional definitions.

An independent review commissioned by Mr Green pointed to the Church’s intentionally broad guidelines, arguing that limiting responsibilities strictly to statutory thresholds misrepresents the true role of a DSA within church contexts.

However, the tribunal’s decision makes it absolutely clear that an expansive interpretation cannot be used as a vehicle for personal disputes.

Ultimately, the judgment offers a timely reminder of the need for firm boundaries. Conflating interpersonal friction with genuine safeguarding matters risks diluting critical protections, overburdening key officers, and distracting from the core duty to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm.