Abuse Redress Measure 2025

3 Person who suffered abuse

(1) An application for redress under this Measure may be made by a person who suffered injury or loss in consequence of suffering abuse if the first or second condition is met.

(2) The first condition is met if, when the abuse was carried out—

(a) the person who carried out the abuse had authority to perform a role in the Church of England, and

(b) there was a close connection between activities authorised for performing that role and carrying out the abuse.

(3) The first condition is not met if, when the abuse was carried out—

(a) the person who carried out the abuse also had authority to perform a role outside the Church of England, and

(b) the connection between activities authorised for performing that other role and carrying out the abuse was closer than the connection referred to in subsection (2)(b).

(4) The second condition is met if each of the following six elements is met.

(5) The first element is met if, when the abuse was carried out, the person who carried it out (“A”) had, or had had, authority to perform a role in the Church of England.

(6) The second element is met if, before the abuse was carried out, a Church officer was aware or ought to have been aware of a significant risk that A might carry out abuse of the same or a similar nature.

(7) The third element is met if—

(a) the Church officer became aware of the risk at a time when A had authority to undertake activities to promote or further the mission of the Church of England, and

(b) the risk is such that is reasonable to think that it could arise in circumstances in which A was undertaking activities of that description or in A’s domestic or other personal circumstances.

(8) The fourth element is met if, after the Church officer became or ought to have become aware of the risk, that or another Church officer had an opportunity to take action of a kind—

(a) which it would have been reasonable for a Church officer of the same description as that or the other Church officer to take, and

(b) which it is reasonable to think could, if taken, have prevented A from carrying out the abuse.

(9) The fifth element is met if no Church officer who had that opportunity took action of that kind.

(10) The sixth element is met if it is more likely than not that, if a Church officer who had that opportunity had taken action of that kind, A would not have carried out the abuse.

(11) The second condition is not met if, after a Church officer became or ought to have become aware of the risk but before the abuse was carried out—

(a) A also had authority to perform a role outside the Church of England,

(b) in the setting in which A performed that other role, there was a person subject to a duty imposed by an enactment or rule of law to report any significant risk that abuse might be carried out in that setting,

(c) that person was aware or ought to have been aware of a significant risk that A might carry out abuse of the same or a similar nature as the abuse that was carried out but did not discharge the duty to report, and

(d) it is more likely than not that, if that person had discharged the duty to report, A would not have carried out the abuse.