Jonathan Fletcher’s dementia means that although a jury has found he committed abuse, he will not be punished. But the Church’s inadequate safeguarding is also to blame for denying his victims proper justice, argues says Gavin Drake
A jury at Kingston Crown Court has concluded that the former Church of England minister Jonathan Fletcher, 83, indecently assaulted a man connected to his ministry on at least 16 occasions over more than two decades, marking a major milestone in one of the most serious safeguarding crises to affect modern British evangelicalism.
Because Fletcher had previously been ruled medically unfit to stand trial, the case was heard as an “examination of the facts” - a rare legal process in which a jury determines whether the alleged acts occurred, but does not return a criminal verdict.
Who is Jonathan Fletcher?
Jonathan Fletcher was one of the best-known conservative evangelical priests in the Church of England. Ordained in the 1970s, he became vicar of Emmanuel Church Wimbledon (ECW) in London in 1982 and remained there until his retirement in 2012. During those years, he built a formidable reputation as a Bible teacher, mentor and trainer.
Fletcher’s influence also extended far beyond his congregation. He was closely connected to networks linked to the controversial Iwerne camps - an influential evangelical ministry that shaped generations of clergy and church leaders. Many men who later moved into senior positions within conservative evangelical churches passed through his ministry or received personal mentoring from him.
The Iwerne camps have since come under intense examination following the abuse perpetrated by barrister John Smyth. The Smyth scandal, and the Church of England’s handling of it, was examined in the Makin Review - findings that ultimately contributed to the resignation of then-Archbishop of Canterbury, Most Rev Justin Welby.
Although the Fletcher and Smyth cases involve different allegations, they have prompted comparable concerns about leadership culture, accountability structures and the handling of safeguarding disclosures. Both cases have intensified scrutiny of how influential individuals within tightly connected evangelical networks were able to exercise authority with limited challenge.
Allegations
Concerns about Fletcher circulated privately for years before finally being made public in 2019 following an expose in The Telegraph. They centred on his ‘discipling’ relationships with younger men and dated back to the 1970s and 1980s. Complainants described coercive and abusive behaviour presented as spiritual formation.
Following the allegations, ECW commissioned Christian safeguarding charity Thirtyone:eight to undertake a review, which was published in 2021. It became one of the most detailed studies yet undertaken into abuse within conservative evangelical Anglicanism.
Based on interviews with nearly 100 people, including more than two dozen individuals who reported harmful experiences, it described physical punishments presented as spiritual discipline, humiliation and controlling conduct, coercive “forfeits”, naked massages and other sexualised behaviour, together with intense mentoring relationships that blurred personal, physical and spiritual boundaries.
It concluded that Fletcher’s conduct amounted to an “abuse of spiritual authority and power”. The reviewers also questioned whether meaningful consent can exist in situations involving major imbalances of age, status or spiritual influence.
The review also concluded that the problems extended beyond one individual. It described an “unhealthy culture”, including concentration of authority in charismatic male leadership, loyalty, fear and an environment that discouraged challenge and suppressed disclosure and suspicion toward outside safeguarding scrutiny. The review made 66 recommendations aimed at reform.
The court case
In 2024, Fletcher pled not guilty to eight counts of indecent assault against one male victim during the period from 1973 to 1999. The proceedings did not continue to a full criminal trial due to Fletcher’s dementia. However, under English law, when a defendant cannot properly understand or participate in proceedings, the court may hold an “examination of the facts” — historically known as a “trial of the facts”.
A jury hears evidence and determines whether the defendant “did the acts” alleged. They do not determine guilt or innocence in the conventional sense because questions about criminal intent - whether the accused possessed a “guilty mind” - cannot properly be assessed. However, such findings still carry considerable weight because they are reached using the criminal standard of proof.
After the verdict, the judge told the court that neither a hospital nor supervision order was appropriate because of Fletcher’s health. “The court’s hands are tied,” Judge Plaschkes said. “The only disposal that I can impose, and do impose on each of these counts, is an absolute discharge.”
What did the Church know?
One of the most contentious aspects of this case concerns prior knowledge. The 2021 independent review found that elements of Fletcher’s behaviour were not entirely hidden. Some aspects of his physical practices and leadership style were known within parts of the church and wider evangelical networks.
Part of what made the case unusually complicated was the structure of ECW itself. Although part of the Church of England, ECW operated as a proprietary chapel - an uncommon legal structure that historically allowed greater independence than a standard parish church.
Unlike most Anglican churches, ECW remains governed through trustees and patrons, appoints clergy through its own arrangements, is financially self-supporting and operates with less clearly defined diocesan oversight.
That independence became highly important once safeguarding concerns emerged. The review identified uncertainty over responsibility between the church, the Diocese of Southwark and national Church of England safeguarding bodies. It concluded that blurred accountability and ineffective communication weakened safeguarding responses.
In 2017, five years after Fletcher’s retirement from ECW, the Bishop of Southwark removed his Permission to Officiate (PTO) following allegations about his conduct that were not made public at the time. This meant he could no longer formally minister within the CofE. However, the review later identified widespread confusion about what this restriction meant in practice. Some organisations continued inviting Fletcher to events or permitting him to retain informal influence.
Senior church figures later acknowledged shortcomings in the way safeguarding information had been communicated. General Synod member and safeguarding campaigner Martin Sewell, a former child protection solicitor, asked what steps had been taken to notify churches historically associated with Fletcher’s ministry that his PTO had been withdrawn. Then lead bishop for safeguarding, Rt Rev Peter Hancock, admitted that he did not know when churches had been informed and said the question “exposes the weakness of what the Church can and cannot do”.
Why does this case matter?
The Fletcher case matters not simply because of the findings against one individual, but because of what it has exposed about culture and governance within sections of the Church of England. For many survivors and safeguarding campaigners, it has become symbolic of a wider institutional problem: a system in which warning signs were minimised or overlooked because the individual involved was regarded as effective, trusted or spiritually important.
The case has exposed structural weaknesses, including unclear lines of authority in non-standard church settings, inconsistent communication around safeguarding restrictions and over-reliance on informal relationships of trust rather than robust accountability mechanisms. More broadly, it raises uncomfortable questions for churches about power, leadership, vulnerability and the limits of pastoral relationships.
Many will feel that an absolute discharge with no criminal conviction is not justice for a man found to have committed abuse spanning several decades. The deeper issue is why it took so long for the allegations to reach court. Like John Smyth, who died before his victims could see him face justice, Jonathan Fletcher’s dementia means that, for those who were abused, there is little sense of closure.
Another troubling aspect is the Church of England’s use of “penalty by consent”. After a tribunal hearing, the Church publishes a narrative decision explaining its findings. Where a penalty by consent is agreed, no equivalent narrative is published. As a result, there may be little or no publicly available explanation setting out the factual basis for the sanction imposed.
In a safeguarding context, that matters greatly. When a high-profile minister’s influence extends far beyond a single congregation, clear public disclosure is essential so that churches, organisations and individuals can make informed safeguarding decisions.
No comments yet