Fletcher - the silence surrounding the "Superstar" sex-offender
- Anglican Futures
- 2 hours ago
- 10 min read
On the 11th of May 2026, a jury at Kingston Crown Court determined that the Revd Jonathan Fletcher had committed at least sixteen acts of indecent assault on a man over a period of about twenty-five years. The majority of assaults involved being beaten on the naked buttocks with a gym shoe, as a punishment for masturbation, including one beating that was so serious it provoked prolonged suicidal ideation.
Another alleged assault involved, an "action replay," in which Fletcher made the complainant try to masturbate in front of him, before masturbating himself.
Jonathan Fletcher is now 83, a brain scan in 2023 showed early signs of dementia and in 2025 psychiatrists reported there was by then sufficient memory loss for the judge to rule that he was 'unfit to plead'. Fletcher was therefore not required to attend the trial. Instead, it was decided that the jury, would simply be required to examine the facts before them and, rather than pronounce him 'guilty', determine whether he had done the acts.
The legal arguments continued, and after a defence born of technicalities upon technicalities, Fletcher avoided being charged with Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH), essentially because the defence psychiatrist had not had the opportunity to interview the complainant.
Eventually, the defendant was accused of the remaining eight charges of indecent assault. The charges were arranged in four pairs, each pair relating to a different time period. The first of each pair related to a single act of indecent assault, the second to a further ‘three or more’ acts in the same time period. Fletcher had previously pleaded not guilty to all charges and that stance was maintained by the counsel for the defence, James Mulholland KC, throughout the hearing.
The jury were advised that to find that Fletcher committed an indecent assault they had to be sure the act in question occurred, was indecent and was non-consensual. On all eight counts the jury found, "He did the act."
Further details of the trial can be found in reports by Evangelicals Now, the Daily Telegraph, Premier Christianity News and the Church Times.
It is not publicly known when the complainant first spoke of this abuse to others. During the time of the offences, Jonathan Fletcher was a curate at St Andrew the Great, Cambridge (1973-1976) and St Helen's Bishopsgate (1976- 1981), and then, after a year of travelling, minister of Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon in 1982, where he remained until he retired in 2012.
In February 2017, the Diocese of Southwark was sufficiently concerned about Fletcher's behaviour to remove his Permission to Officiate. They did not, however, inform his successor, the Revd Robin Weekes of their decision until November of that year. It took nearly eighteen months for a statement, signed by Weekes among others to be sent to church leaders in the conservative evangelical Anglican ReNew network, and then, merely warning them not to invite Jonathan to speak at their churches.
The content of that statement was widely regarded as regrettable in at least three respects. In it was an assurance to the recipients that "no matters of criminal concern had been raised", at a time when the most that could actually be said was that no such matters had yet been raised with the authors and those whom they had consulted. The letter also failed to consider the precedent, which had already been set in the case of Bishop Peter Ball, that abusive Church of England clergy could be charged with misconduct in public office.
In addition, this risked discouraging those who did think they had been subject to criminal offences to come forward. This is because the statement gave the perception that those assuming leadership on the matter had already determined the actions to be less serious.
As if to leave no doubt, those failings were both compounded due to the letter, inexcusably, making no mention of victims at all, which inevitably gave the impression that the authors, and the process leading to it, were not victim-centred.
The first Daily Telegraph article, published in June 2019, spoke of "spiritual abuse", with articles outlining reports of physical and sexual abuse coming later that year. This led to an Independent Lessons Learned Review by the safeguarding charity Thirtyone:eight.
The Review focused on Jonathan Fletcher's time at Emmanuel Church Wimbledon. They spoke to almost one hundred individuals - including twenty-seven who reported experiencing behaviours that some alleged to be harmful, as well as office holders and members of the Church. The pattern it revealed was complicated.
Jonathan Fletcher was a charismatic leader, who the complainant described as, "Very witty, very clever, very charismatic – glamorous is the word that comes to mind – to us he was a Superstar. He bowled us over." It was said by some that he was an exceptional bible teacher and the Review quoted one individual as saying, "The majority felt wonderfully positive about JF [Jonathan Fletcher]; he drew us to him and we were thankful to God." (p50).
This made it harder for many to believe that Fletcher could be harming others. The Review described it as the "myth of homogeneity" which "leads to incorrect assumptions that individuals who possess positive giftings and behaviours cannot behave in harmful, and/or abusive ways, which render them unfit for office."
It is, therefore, understandable that for many their response to the reports of abuse has been one of cognitive dissonance. As one participant told the Review:
"When a friend emailed me the Telegraph articles, I was angry and upset with the newspaper's reporting that made judgments about such serious accusations, and further allegations, before a court trial of the eye-witness evidence had been met. I have never experienced anything except kindness and equal mutuality from Jonathan." (p44)
The complainant in the trial had also struggled to understand what was happening, as he put it, "Never any comment afterwards - it was all very matter of course – everyday, perfectly normal behaviour."
The Review highlighted another serious problem. It explained that the culture in which Jonathan Fletcher operated is "interconnected", one where "loyalty was important" and there was "a far reaching and intertwined network and the ability to impact on career aspirations". This, the reviewers found, made reporting and responding to reports of abuse more difficult.
“His [Jonathan Fletcher] influence over the church and the conservative evangelical wing of the Church...wherever you went everyone knew him, his spiders web of influence meant to stand up against him you were standing up against a lot of people.” (p58).
"As he [Jonathan Fletcher] rose through ranks to become emperor, king, top dog – everyone around him was under him or their boss was – it felt like all roads led to Jonathan.” (p59)
“People are easily written off by whispering campaigns, if you don’t tow the line, or step outside of expectations, loyalty is a big thing.” (p62)
It is disappointing that more than 48 hours after the verdict, there has been no comment from any of the churches in which Jonathan Fletcher served. This stands in stark contrast, to the compassionate approach of Her Honour Judge Sarah Plashkes KC, who took the time to recognise the significance of the findings.
Concerned that some may think that her decision to give Jonathan Fletcher an 'unconditional discharge' meant his acts were trivial, the judge went out of her way to explain that because of his dementia the "courts hands are tied." There are only three possible disposals from a fact-finding hearing; a hospital order, which was not necessary; a supervision order which would be impossible to arrange; or an unconditional discharge.
She continued, "It is important for victims of sexual assault to be heard. The complainant has had his case heard and independently and impartially considered by a jury. They are satisfied so that they are sure that Jonathan Fletcher indecently assaulted [the complainant] without his consent."
Twelve men and women, who knew none of those involved, who it had been established had no connection to any of the churches that Jonathan had served in, and had not been influenced by prior information, were asked to listen to the testimony of an individual. They heard him, believed him and determined that Jonathan's behaviour met the criteria for an indecent assault.
The verdict is definitive - it can no longer be said that Jonathan Fletcher's behaviour was 'normal', or that it was neither 'criminal' nor 'sexual', or that those harmed had consented to the assaults. Those who have said such things in the past should surely not remain silent at this time.
For Lee Furney, a survivor of Jonathan Fletcher, who waived his anonymity, this comes as a relief and a warning. He told the Daily Telegraph:
"This long-awaited guilty verdict is the quiet kind of justice of truth being named plainly. It affirms something essential: that harm matters, that truth has weight and that even when delayed, accountability can find its way to the surface. May this moment be about honouring those who were wronged, restoring dignity where it was taken and reminding us all of the responsibility we carry to protect one another.”
While the experience of any victim of abuse is unique, it is striking how many aspects of the complainant's testimony have been experienced by others.
In being willing to bring his case to court, the courageous victim, who cannot be named, has done great service by allowing himself to be a specific and publicly tested example of the type of abuses suffered by so many. That this is but a single example of a much wider cultural problem can be seen in the similarity between the complainant's testimony and the experiences of others.
In that context, the following extracts are offered, in the hope that whatever might be redeemed from this terrible situation can come about. It is hoped that those who have been harmed by Jonathan Fletcher, or others, might be assured that they too can be heard and believed and all concerned might commit themselves to reforming cultures where such abuse has already persisted for far too long.
Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.
Proverbs 31:8 (ESV)
Spiritual abuse/bullying
"It is hard to quantify... he beat me and it was painful - so what? There was the embarrassing situation – the 'action replay' – so what? It was the long term control that he exerted – I couldn’t take any major decision – not just without his advice but without his approval. You know that was the thing that was damaging. Anything of any significance – yeah."
Complainant's testimony
" ... a number of participants detailed manipulative, controlling or coercive behaviour and bullying and some used the term spiritual abuse to reflect their experiences."
Thirtyone:eight Independent Lessons Learned Review p38
Behaviour in Bible studies etc
"He would sort of attract to himself people who he regarded as keen. There were 5-6 of us who started to think about following in his footsteps and getting ordained – his fan club/ acolytes - and that sense of being special was cultivated by his comments about you and about other people – you wanted to be in the group."
Complainant's testimony
"A number of participants spoke of a shame culture in Bible studies. This, in addition to the focus on ‘sound, solid and orthodox’ theology, for some, resulted in a pressure to get every answer right. These behaviours were also spoken about in relation to preaching groups, staff meetings and Bible study weekends. However, many commented that the challenge that came could be given in a passive aggressive manner, making it difficult to recognise and call out as inappropriate."
Thirtyone:eight Independent Lessons Learned Review p38
Letter Writing
"Between 2012-3 Jonathan Fletcher contacted the complainant on a significant number of occasions asking him to provide a letter that he had never been abused by him."
Agreed facts of the case
"In the right context letter writing can be profoundly helpful and demonstrate individual concern and care. However, in the letters shown to the Reviewers there was evidence of encouragement but also of clear manipulation."
Thirtyone:eight Independent Lessons Learned Review p40
Personal relational work & harmful behaviours
"I first met him and got to know him at the church as a young teenager... we would get bus there and he would drive us home – he dropped me off last and it became a regular thing for us - sitting and chatting in the car."
The complainant spoke of how, decades later, he met regularly with Fletcher:
"He would ask questions about my personal bible study and personal prayer. Various questions but always one question that came up – a touchstone sort of - which became a touchstone of my spiritual health - Actually he first asked it [ ...] in the car chatting he said, "What was the worst thing about me?" – I was 16 a rugby player and fairly healthy and red blooded - the worst thing I could think to tell him was masturbation – and that would become a regular question – whenever he was asking me about my spirituality that question was always one."
Complainant's testimony
"He invested a large amount of time into mentoring relationships. This was a hallmark of ministry at Iwerne that JF continued in his ministry beyond Iwerne. It is important to recognise here that taking part in these camps was significant for many and these took place during formative years for many young adults... Again, a number of participants discussed positively the impact of personal work on their own spiritual life and career development... Others reflected that looking back they might now conceptualise these behaviours as a form of ‘grooming’ in the sense of preparing the way for future conduct."
Thirtyone:eight Independent Lessons Learned Review p40-41
Forfeit behaviours/ sanctions
"When I turned 18 he introduced the idea of sanctions – if I had masturbated since I last saw him he would inflict a punishment. His favourite punishment was being hit with a gym shoe. I’ve been thinking about it - I thought it was consensual –and I never said, "No I’m not doing it, but looking back I was never asked – it was taken for granted... The thing that shocked me, surprised me, was I had to remove my trousers and underpants – that surprised me - it was on my bare buttocks that really surprised me."
Complainant's testimony
"A small number of participants had been involved with what are termed ‘forfeit behaviours’; these occurred within prayer triplets/quadruplets. These behaviours ranged from being hit on the naked bottom with a gym shoe, being given a cold bath, or being left outside in the cold while the rest of the prayer triplet/quadruplet were inside."
Thirtyone:eight Independent Lessons Learned Review p43
Impact
"He gave me a particularly brutal beating – I can remember for weeks afterwards the effect – for several weeks when I wasn’t doing anything else, the thought in my mind at all times was “What would be the best way to kill myself?” – the easiest quickest and painless way to kill myself – that was all I could think about for several weeks"
Complainant's testimony
"The level of fear in talking to the Reviewers at all, and especially about the behaviours experienced, demonstrates the impact these have had. The interviews demonstrated confusion, self-doubt and guilt in some and the difficulty of processing these experiences. There can be no doubt that deep and profound harm has been experienced."
Thirtyone:eight Independent Lessons Learned Review p40-41
Anglican Futures is committed to a safer Anglican future.
for more information.
b