Presumption of guilt

SIR – From Arthur Varndell’s letter (March 26) it is clear that the issue of safeguarding in the C of E is getting out of hand, if anyone accused is presumed to be guilty and now has to prove their innocence.

It seems quite wrong that a basic principle of English law is being turned on its head.

Bishop George Bell cannot prove his innocence, having departed this life 70 years ago. There is therefore all the more reason that his family’s chosen legal representative should be allowed to present his case, rather than someone chosen by the Diocese of Chichester, which clearly has a vested interest in ensuring that its attitude is maintained.

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Graham Toole-mackson JP

Arundel, West Sussex

SIR – I am appalled that in Chichester Diocese safeguarding requires that allegations bring an assumption of guilt, with the defendant having to prove innocence. This is totally unacceptable.

It is the unalienable right of an Englishman to be innocent until proved guilty.

I am ashamed to be a member of a Church that is perverting justice in this way. Laurence Anderson

Kidlington, Oxfordshire