St Ebbe’s and the Smyth Scandal: An Inadequate Response

I’m a former staff member of Iwerne Holidays, the now-defunct summer camps at the centre of the John Smyth abuse scandal. In a recent interview, the Bishop of Winchester said “That whole world of those camps was fairly enclosed, self-referential and not a world that I ever belonged to. … How those networks function is probably something you can only really understand from within and I wasn’t within.” Unlike the bishop, I did belong to that world, and I do understand how those networks function. As a result, I think it would be wrong for me to stay silent. It’s surely better for evangelicals to address our own scandals ourselves, even publicly if necessary, instead of leaving them to be addressed by non-Christians. Our task is to light up the world (Matthew 5:14), not wait for the world to shine a light upon us.

The purpose of this article is to call for Vaughan Roberts, the Rector of St Ebbe’s Church, to do two things:

(1) Publicly apologise, because given his admitted knowledge of Smyth’s abuse, he should have addressed it when he was a trustee of the Titus Trust, the governing body that ran Iwerne Holidays.

(2) Answer questions put to him about the extent of his knowledge of the abuse. Survivors of Smyth’s abuse have said, “For victims like us, full closure is impossible without full disclosure.”

As I’ll explain later, I contacted Vaughan privately before saying anything publicly.

The Makin Review 

The Makin Review, published last week, revealed the Church of England’s failings concerning the abuse committed by Smyth. The review estimates that Smyth subjected “at least 115 children and young men” in Britain and Africa to “traumatic physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual attacks.” One 16-year-old boy, Guide Nyachuru, died in 1992 in highly suspicious circumstances while attending one of Smyth’s camps in Zimbabwe. 

One of the worst parts of the scandal is the decades-long failure to bring Smyth to justice. If Smyth had been properly held to account by those who knew what he’d done in Britain, the abuse in Africa may never have happened. Smyth’s abuse in Britain was covered up by the people first informed about it: the leaders of Iwerne Holidays, a conservative evangelical ministry focused on elite boarding schools.

Most of the architects of the cover-up are now deceased or no longer active in ministry. However, the Makin Review also mentions other individuals, still active in ministry, who knew about the abuse (whether earlier or later) but failed to act rightly in response to what they knew. One of those was Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who resigned following the review’s publication. 

Some active church officers are openly criticised in the review. In other cases, the review merely states allegations without offering a verdict.

Vaughan Roberts and the Makin Review

One of the church officers named in the Makin Review is Vaughan Roberts. Here’s the relevant excerpt from the review:

“One such entry concerns Reverend Vaughan Roberts, the Vicar at St Ebbe’s Church in Oxford. It concerns an allegation made that Vaughan Roberts, whilst at a dinner at a conference in South Africa in 2017, made comments which were minimising of the abuses carried out by John Smyth. The assertion is that Vaughan Roberts knew of the abuse and characterised it as being understandable in the context of the time. Vaughan Roberts has made a statement to this Review, in which he says that his comments at the dinner have been misinterpreted and that he considers the abuses to be criminal and serious. He says that he did not know of the seriousness of the abuse until the airing of the Channel 4 programmes in early 2017. He does say that he had known ‘something’ had happened regarding John Smyth, but that the severity was never shared with him. Another person present at this dinner has written to Reviewers corroborating Vaughan Roberts’ version of events. We do not make any judgement either way about this matter and simply want to ensure that a fair account of the allegation and the response to it is conveyed.“

It’s clear from that final sentence (“We do not make any judgement either way about this matter”) that Makin didn’t exonerate Vaughan.

Why I Contacted Vaughan

The original generation who orchestrated the cover-up were highly respected conservative evangelical leaders such as Mark Ruston, who from 1955–87 led the Round Church in Cambridge (now St Andrew the Great), and David Fletcher, who from 1986–98 led St Ebbe’s. Surely one lesson conservative evangelicals must learn from this scandal is that we can’t assume our own leaders will always get things right.

With that in mind, I emailed Vaughan Roberts after the Makin Review was published, asking if I could speak with him. I’ve known Vaughan for thirty years. I was a member of St Ebbe’s from 1995–98 and 2000–03, and I also served alongside him at many events run by Iwerne Holidays. I wanted to speak with him because it seemed to me that he’d known enough about the abuse to have addressed it in a meaningful way, and I thought he should issue a public apology for his inaction.

What Did Vaughan Know?

Vaughan has himself acknowledged that he read the account of Smyth’s abuse in John Thorn’s autobiography, The Road to Winchester, when it was published in 1989. (Vaughan would then have been 23 or 24; 1989 was the year when he began training for Anglican ministry at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford). Thorn had been the headmaster of Winchester College at the time when Smyth was grooming and abusing some of its pupils. Vaughan was a pupil at Winchester during those years, but he never met Smyth. He was in his final year at the school (aged 17–18) when Smyth was banned from the school premises in September 1982.

Thorn’s account, which can be read in a screenshot at the end of this post, includes three critical pieces of information. My own observations are added in brackets:

• The abuser was a neighbour who had no formal position at Winchester College. 

(This meant he had no institutional right to punish the pupils.)

• He physically punished their sins.

(A gross perversion of the Christian faith.)

• He was quietly banished.

(This indicated there was a cover-up.)

Thorn didn’t name the abuser, but it’s evident from the Makin Review, quoted above, that Vaughan knew the abuser’s name was John Smyth. 

In the years that followed, Vaughan would have been repeatedly reminded of Smyth’s abuse by the ongoing difficulties of the evangelical group at Winchester, Vaughan’s old school. The predicament of that group – off-campus and under a cloud – was unique among all the schools associated with Iwerne Holidays. Most people involved with Iwerne, myself included, never knew what had caused such severe harm to that group’s reputation. But, thanks to Thorn’s account, Vaughan did know, and he also knew the identity of the man responsible. (The information in this paragraph is significant because it answers the objection that Vaughan may have largely forgotten what he knew about Smyth’s abuse. The situation at Winchester would have kept reminding him, throughout his decades of involvement with Iwerne.)

Vaughan’s Trusteeship

In the early 2000s, Vaughan began serving as a trustee of the Titus Trust, the organisation that took over the responsibilities of the Iwerne Trust (which Smyth had chaired). This put Vaughan in a suitable position to address the abuse. He could have asked the following questions: what exactly had Smyth done? Why was he allowed to depart quietly for Africa? Where was he at the current time and what was he doing? Had the authorities in Britain and Africa been properly informed? Nothing was stopping Vaughan from asking such questions.

Two of Vaughan’s fellow trustees at that time, David Fletcher and David Wilkinson, were architects of the cover-up and knew the full extent of the savagery perpetrated by Smyth. If Vaughan had addressed Smyth’s abuse, Fletcher and Wilkinson would have been obliged for fiduciary reasons to answer his questions. (Vaughan also had the opportunity to ask Fletcher for information about Smyth during the years 1991–98, when he was Fletcher’s right-hand man at St Ebbe’s; 1991 was just two years after he’d read his headmaster’s account of the abuse, and he knew Fletcher had been leading Iwerne at the relevant time.) 

Vaughan was therefore uniquely positioned in his generation to make an intervention: he’d been at Winchester College when the abuse was happening, so he understood the context; he knew the name of the abuser; he knew the long-term impact of the abuse on the Iwerne-linked group at his school; he knew the abuser had been quietly banished to Africa where he might be committing further abuse; and he was a trustee of the relevant governing board. If Vaughan had pursued the matter as diligently as it deserved, he could conceivably have helped bring Smyth to justice and stopped him carrying out further abuse.

Response from Vaughan and the St Ebbe’s Churchwardens

In his reply to my email asking for a conversation, Vaughan said, “The Makin review makes horrific reading. If you’ve got anything you want to say to me, I think that would be best done via email. I keep accountable to the wardens, so if you do write, please copy them.” So I emailed Vaughan and his churchwardens, urging him to disclose the full extent of what he knew. I included a list of questions designed to help with that process of disclosure.

To my disappointment, the churchwardens replied “We have encouraged Vaughan not to engage with bilateral questions outside of the formal channels.” This is a seriously inadequate approach for the churchwardens to take. In Anglican evangelical churches, churchwardens serve as the equivalent of elders. That means they must listen carefully to accusations made against their pastor, which is why Vaughan himself acknowledged that he’s accountable to them. But by solely relying on the “formal channels” – that is, the safeguarding personnel of the Church of England – the churchwardens are relying on the very same channels criticised by Makin for their negligence (see, for example, paragraph 22.1.1 in the review). 

Furthermore, in any situation where people stand accused, one way to discover whether they’re truly being transparent is to compare the answers they’ve given to different people. The churchwardens said “Vaughan has been fully transparent with us,” but they can’t know whether Vaughan’s given the same answers to them that he’s given to others. By removing themselves from the question-and-answer process they’ve effectively refused to test Vaughan’s transparency. This approach is especially problematic in relation to the Smyth scandal because victims have criticised the evangelical community on the basis that “seemingly comprehensive accounts were actually studies in obfuscation” (Scripture Union Executive Summary, 6.34).

The Makin Review finds fault with certain church officers for their “distinct lack of curiosity” (14.1.1.d). The same criticism could be made of the St Ebbe’s churchwardens. It’s not right for elders to say, in effect, “We trust our pastor so much that we don’t need to see him answer these questions.” Instead, elders should say to their pastor, “These are reasonable questions. The person asking them isn’t the only person raising questions along these lines (1 Timothy 5:19). We believe we have a duty in God’s sight to see your answers.”

Vaughan and his churchwardens have submitted themselves to the judgment of Church of England personnel while categorically refusing to engage with fellow evangelicals (to repeat their words, “We have encouraged Vaughan not to engage with bilateral questions outside of the formal channels”). In view of the largely non-evangelical nature of the Church of England, the approach taken by St Ebbe’s is unbiblical (see 1 Corinthians 6:1–6). It’s true that in a mixed denomination such as the Church of England it may be necessary for non-evangelicals to have a judicial role. But in such circumstances, rightfully-concerned evangelicals shouldn’t be completely shut out of the judicial process, as they have been by St Ebbe’s.

A Statement from St Ebbe’s About the Makin Review

Among Church of England office-holders still in their post, Vaughan is the best-known conservative evangelical named in the Makin Review. His inclusion inevitably attracted attention, and the St Ebbe’s churchwardens issued a statement on the church website offering further information. The most relevant section of the statement is copied below.

Vaughan Roberts is mentioned once in the Review. He met and was fully transparent with Mr Makin, as he has been with us, about what he knew and when, in relation to Smyth’s abuse. In the light of this, Mr Makin made no criticism of him (as he has also made clear in communication with Vaughan), and he was not included in the process which gave those criticised in the Review an opportunity to see what was said about them in advance of its publication. Vaughan was a 16 year old pupil at Winchester College when the abuse was first exposed in 1982. He never met Smyth and knew nothing about the abuse until a brief conversation in 1989 with a friend, who referred very vaguely to a scandal which had occurred. A few weeks later Vaughan read his headmaster’s autobiography, which contained an account, which greatly understated the reality of what happened and implied the facts were already widely known by those in authority. Very occasionally in the intervening years reference to these events was made in a conversation in very vague terms, but none changed the impression he had been given by the book. It was only after the Channel 4 report in 2017 that he had any awareness of the extent and brutality of what happened, let alone the fact that under 18s were involved. He, along with the rest of us, was horrified and deeply shocked by this.

This statement deepens the impression that the churchwardens aren’t handling the situation justly. The statement includes a summary of John Thorn’s account of the abuse, which Vaughan had read. Since most St Ebbe’s members wouldn’t ever look at what Thorn had actually written, the churchwardens’ summary was very significant. Their task was to accurately communicate what Vaughan had learned from Thorn’s account. The churchwardens said: 

“Vaughan read his headmaster’s autobiography, which … implied the facts were already widely known by those in authority.” 

Most people would understand “those in authority” to mean the police and judiciary. But Thorn nowhere implied that they knew about Smyth. In fact, he implied the very opposite by stating that Smyth was “quietly” banished, indicating that a cover-up had taken place. The churchwardens’ summary of Thorn’s account should be compared with the summary found in a 2022 review commissioned by Winchester College: “It is clear from the description in The Road to Winchester that John Thorn was aware that Smyth had left the UK after the disclosure, that he had not been referred to the authorities by the school, that his abuse was not generally known to the public and that he was operating without any restrictions on his future involvement with children” (p. 104, emphasis added). That’s an accurate summary. In contrast, the summary given by the St Ebbe’s churchwardens was seriously misleading. It had the effect of making Vaughan seem less knowledgeable than he really was.

The St Ebbe’s statement also says Thorn’s autobiography “greatly understated the reality of what happened”. That’s untrue. Thorn accurately said “The neighbouring barrister had gained such personal control over a few of the senior boys … that he was … with their consent … punishing them physically when they confessed to him they had sinned.” Thorn left open the question of how severe the punishing was, which is very different from understating what had happened. (To understate it would be to say something misleading such as “punishing them with light beatings”.) So, once again, the churchwardens’ summary made Vaughan’s knowledge seem less weighty than it truly was.

Actions To Take

Given all the above, Vaughan needs to say more than what he has said thus far. In particular, he needs to address his failure, while he was a trustee of the Titus Trust, to raise necessary questions about Smyth’s abuse. 

In addition, Vaughan should disclose the extent of his knowledge by answering the questions at the end of this post (Appendix A). Everything said above assumes that, before 2017, Vaughan only knew about the abuse via the sources he’s publicly acknowledged: Thorn’s account and some “vague” conversations. But it’s possible that Vaughan has downplayed his knowledge. The reasons for thinking that will become clear from the questions below. They show that there were many different routes by which Vaughan might have learned that Smyth had sadistically beaten boys and young men.

Finally, I’d like to emphasise that I’m not calling for Vaughan’s resignation. I think Vaughan’s role in the Smyth scandal should be properly addressed in accordance with biblical judicial principles, but it’s not my place to prejudge the final verdict of that process.

Author’s Note, July 2025

Following the publication of this article in November 2024, I’ve edited it to try to strengthen the case it’s making (particularly the section titled “A Statement from St Ebbe’s About the Makin Review”). There has been no response to the article from St Ebbe’s.

Appendix A

Questions sent by email to Vaughan and his churchwardens

I prefaced these questions with the comment “They’re expressed somewhat forcefully, but that is not intended to communicate distrust. Rather, the questions are intended to encourage clarity.”

Q1. You told the Makin Review that you knew Smyth had committed abuse but you didn’t know the severity. What did you know, pre-2017, about the nature of the abuse? Did you know that he had violently beaten schoolboys? Did you know that there were sexual overtones? Did you know about the spiritual nature of the abuse? Did you know that he had abused more than a dozen victims? If not, what was your sense of the number of victims involved?

Q2. You’ve known William Taylor and Mark Stibbe for many years. As victims, they were under no obligation to tell you about Smyth, but did either of them tell you about his abuse? If so, what did they tell you, to your best and fullest recollection?

Q3. One of the revelations of the Makin Review is that Smyth’s abuse was more of an open secret than previously understood. It therefore seems likely that a number of people would have asked you, conscious that you were an Old Wykehamist, a question such as “Did you ever come into contact with John Smyth?” That conversation could easily have then developed in such a way as to inform you that Smyth violently beat boys. Did you have that conversation, or a conversation like it, with Mark Ashton, David Fletcher, Jonathan Fletcher, David Wilkinson, Mark Ruston, Peter Krakenberger, Peter Wells, Hugh Palmer, John Eddison, Giles Rawlinson, Rico Tice or anyone else?

Q4. You became a Christian in your last year at Winchester, in 1983, which means there were Smyth survivors among your Christian Old Wykehamist contemporaries (a very small world). Did any Old Wykehamist, whether Christian or non-Christian, share information about Smyth with you, and if so, what was that information?

Q5. In your role as President of CICCU, did you ever receive information about the abuse of Cambridge students by Smyth just a few years previously? If so, what was that information?

Q6. How well did you get to know Mark Ashton when he was a chaplain at Winchester during your time at the school? Mark Ashton arrived at the Round Church in 1987, the year when you were president of CICCU. How well did you get to know him during your time in Cambridge? Were you attending the Round Church then? During the entirety of your acquaintanceship with Mark Ashton, what information did he give you about Smyth’s abuse?

Q7. You were closely associated with Iwerne Holidays during the 30+ years between Smyth’s departure to Africa in 1984 and the Channel 4 report in 2017. You therefore had close ministerial relationships with the leaders who commissioned the Ruston Report. Did you ever see that report, or any part of it, before 2017? If so, when did that happen, and who showed it to you? What precisely did the Fletchers, Mark Ruston, or any other Iwerne figures familiar with the Ruston Report tell you about Smyth’s abuse before 2017? 

Q8. When you were recruited in 1991 by David Fletcher to work alongside him at St Ebbe’s, did he ask you how much you knew about Smyth? Did he ever discuss Smyth with you, and if so, what did he say? Were you aware that Fletcher was overseeing the ongoing efforts, such as they were, to warn leaders in Africa about Smyth? In 1992 Guide Nyachuru died on a Smyth-run camp in Zimbabwe, and in 1995 Smyth was charged with culpable homicide. Was nothing said by Fletcher to you about Smyth during those years? 

Q9. You knew Peter Krakenberger from Winchester and also from Iwerne Holidays, which he continued to attend until the mid 1990s. Krakenberger is known to have told people about Smyth, as acknowledged by Rico Tice (13.1.25 in the Makin Review). What did Krakenberger tell you about Smyth’s abuse? What did he tell you about Smyth’s later whereabouts and activities?

Q10. How many times did you return to Winchester to carry out Iwerne-related ministry at the invitation of Peter Krakenberger and others before 2017? The Iwerne-linked Christian meeting had been forced off campus by the College authorities because of Smyth’s abuse. Was Smyth’s abuse ever mentioned to you in connection with the status of the Iwerne-linked ministry at Winchester? If so, what was said to you?

Q11. Simon Doggart was in his final year at Winchester when you were in your first year. Your path might also have crossed with his in connection with public school and university alumni cricket events. Did you know Simon Doggart? Did you know that Doggart had abused boys alongside Smyth? Did you know that he went on to teach senior and junior schoolboys? If so, did you disclose Doggart’s abuse to the relevant authorities?

Q12. You spent time in Africa in the 1980s. Did anyone there ever ask you about Smyth or give you information about him? If so, what were you told?

Q13. Did you ever warn anyone, whether in Africa or Britain, about Smyth? If so, what did you say?

Q14. What precisely did you know about the Zambesi Trust and Smyth’s role in it before 2017?

Q15. Did you read Anne Atkins’s 2012 article that alluded to Smyth? If so, did you connect what she said with what you knew about Smyth?

Q16. Were you ever consulted by the Titus Trust or anyone else about Smyth during the years 2012–2016, when his abuse began to be reported? If so, what was your involvement and what did you say?

Q17. Did you ever see Smyth in Africa? Did you visit his home in any country? 

Q18. It’s understood that Smyth was known among your generation of Iwerne leaders as “Whacker Smyth”. Did you ever hear that nickname being used, and if so, what was the context? 

Q19. It’s understood that Iwerne leaders knew that young people from Britain were encountering Smyth in Africa after his relocation. Were you aware of that as a fact or as a rumour? It’s alleged that [REDACTED] was tasked with debriefing some of those young people on their return to Britain. Were you aware of that? 

Q20. Did you feel you had a moral duty to find out more about Smyth’s conduct, given the significant awareness you already possessed via your knowledge that Smyth was the unnamed barrister in Thorn’s account? If you didn’t feel you had that duty, can you account for your lack of due curiosity?

Q21. Can you honestly say that you did everything you possibly could, with the knowledge you had, to raise awareness of Smyth’s abusive conduct and thereby protect people from becoming his victims?

Appendix B

From John Thorn’s autobiography: