When looking back on abuse cases that have plagued the church, some of the most common questions centre around whether there were early warning signs, whether something was missed, and most importantly, whether we can prevent this from happening in the future. The answer to each is wrapped up in a simple, yet difficult proposition: we need to start encouraging and listening to those who speak up and stop blindly trusting those in power.

A few months before Father Damian Howard, my former Senior Chaplain at the Oxford University Catholic Chaplaincy (OUCC), was removed under obscure circumstances, later revealed to be due to a sexual abuse complaint, I filed a non-sexual complaint against him. I had recently gone to Damian for spiritual support, explaining that I was struggling with my faith. In response, he spent the better part of an hour mocking me, belittling me, and – just for good measure – rolling his eyes at me. While I came away from the conversation upset, it was not until I spoke with family, friends, and an academic dean that I realised his responses and behaviour, given his position, were inappropriate. At the suggestion of my dean, I opted, hesitantly, to file a complaint.

At the time – late January of last year – the safeguarding officer of the chaplaincy community was, in fact, Damian. While I now realise this was a failure to properly safeguard the community, I thought little of it then, and simply opted to file a complaint with the Jesuits in Britain’s safeguarding officer, Julie Ashby-Ellis. Julie had previously worked as the safeguarding officer under Damian’s provincialate, as he was the prior leader of the Jesuit organisation in Britain; however, considering the asininity of reporting Damian to himself, she was my closest hope of ensuring any impartiality.

Ruled as a ministerial complaint – and not safeguarding – by Julie, a designation meaning that my complaint, according to her judgement, did not meet the criteria of abuse, my complaint landed in the hands of the current British Provincial and organisation’s leader, Father Peter Gallagher. In response to my complaint, the provincial immediately prohibited Damian from having any further contact with me, a response that inadvertently prohibited me from worshipping at or taking part in the chaplaincy community for over six months, while Damian carried on with his life as usual. He also reprimanded Damian, assigned him to be retrained and “closely watched,” and finally promised me that this sort of behaviour would never happen again, a promise that sadly ended up broken in late July – within the span of six short months.

Only after the alleged abuse became public, months after the initial abuse allegations, did I find out what led to that promise being broken, while I was gone from the chaplaincy. The Jesuit Provincial, with some prodding from me, informed me he had assigned Damian to speak once a week with two Jesuits from Campion Hall and once a month with a Jesuit psychotherapist, during which Damian simply told them that he was overworked and overtired. He did not disclose to them the conduct later alleged by another student about him, including allegations that Damian encouraged the student to remove clothing and get into bed with him, a fact I only later found out after media-publicised reports of the alleged sexual abuse and institutional cover-up this past February. And while the provincial-appointed training was focused on “inappropriate language and underlying negative attitudes”, there was no actual supervision, like a safeguarding officer or trained professional, to keep an eye on Damian and to ensure he was improving, in the aftermath of my complaint, as the provincial opted not to inform the two safeguarding representatives underneath Damian at the chaplaincy of my complaint. To the Jesuits, whatever Damian said was sacrosanct.

While the provincial later expressed deep shame for the inadequate supervision of Damian at the chaplaincy for those six months, this was not the first time I came away from an interaction feeling that Damian’s truth was greater than mine. And in the months since, I have firmly come to believe that the key to stopping abuse in the church might be found in examining the why.

Power and status, in the Catholic Church, are construed as markers of integrity and character. Priests are placed on a pedestal, separated from the rest of the Catholic population and are believed to be good by virtue of their position, not by virtue of their character. This erroneous conflation of power with goodness results in a church that trusts only her priests as mouthpieces. This proxy additionally, and adversely, causes anyone who speaks up to learn that silence, and the obedience and deference to power needed to achieve that silence, might as well be the church’s cardinal virtues.

Unquestionably, this culture was evident in the provincial’s blind trust of Damian for six months, but that alone does not even scratch the surface. There was the time I confided in a fellow Catholic about my experiences with Damian. He insinuated that I was lying, since Damian was the former provincial of the British Jesuits, and as a priest in good standing, simply could not have done anything I claimed. And there was the time I sought advice from another Oxford Catholic chaplain, months after Damian’s removal, over whether to file a second complaint about a comment he said that was likely sexualizing – “If you had a partner, you’d be spending a lot more time with your partner than with God, right?” The chaplain dismissed me, believing that Damian was a good person who just said a bad thing. Or, the one that hurt the most was the social isolation I felt after being shunned by a number of students who linked my return to the chaplaincy to Damian’s disappearance. Moments like these, sadly, worked to make me doubt my own perception and silence my own voice, all the while the conduct another student would later describe as abuse was happening right under the nose of the Oxford Catholic community.

While the culture of the Catholic Church hammers in the virtues of obedience, silence, and blind deference to those in power, a darker reality is haunting: those in power are aware of this. To illustrate, for months, Damian became a master of duplicity, pretending to become a better person under provincial-appointed supervision, all the while allegedly engaging in abusive conduct with a student behind closed doors. No one questioned Damian; everyone was blindly trusting him. The culture was working exactly as it was supposed to, and all he had to do was take advantage of it.

In the months after media reports of Damian’s sexual abuse allegations surfaced, I felt uncontrollably angry, due to the widespread belief that the abuse came out of left field. That was never the truth. I, for one, should know. I kept trying to speak up. It is just that the Catholic community fostered an environment in which my voice never mattered, and by virtue of his position alone, my priest’s did. While it has been said a thousand times over, hopefully, this will be the last: the key to preventing abuse in the Catholic Church must be to make sure that this never happens again.

In response, Jesuits in Britain told Cherwell: “The Jesuits in Britain take concerns raised with us seriously.

The written complaint from Ms Poindexter concerned a pastoral interaction with Fr Damian Howard SJ. She described feeling that her concerns had been minimised and dismissed, and that she felt invalidated by the response she received. It did not allege that Fr Howard had mocked her. We did not receive an allegation of abuse.

The complaint was received by our Safeguarding and Professional Conduct Coordinator and assessed in accordance with our policies and procedures. It was then dealt with directly by the Provincial Superior, Fr Peter Gallagher SJ. As the major superior and head of the Jesuits in Britain, the Provincial has responsibility for the leadership, governance and oversight of the Province and its members. His direct involvement reflected the seriousness with which the complaint was taken.

Fr Howard was called to account for the way he had responded and apologised for the hurt caused. Fr Gallagher also apologised to Ms Poindexter on behalf of the Jesuits and maintained communication with her about the concerns she had raised. Action was taken with Fr Howard, including training focused on better pastoral approaches, language and underlying attitudes. There was also ongoing follow-up and oversight of Fr Howard. It would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that there was no follow-up or oversight following the complaint.

The Jesuits in Britain recognise that Ms Poindexter experienced the response to her concerns as unsympathetic and dismissive, and we are sorry for the experience she had.

Our Safeguarding and Professional Conduct Coordinator, Julie Ashby-Ellis, provides a clear point of contact for anyone wishing to raise a concern. She is responsible for receiving and assessing concerns, advising on the appropriate response and overseeing matters in accordance with our policies and procedures. Her role includes ensuring that concerns are followed up appropriately and that those who come forward are listened to, treated with respect and taken seriously.

The complaint made by Ms Poindexter was not related to the decision in August 2025 to ask Fr Damian Howard SJ to step down from his role as Senior Chaplain at the Oxford University Catholic Chaplaincy. That decision followed a complaint received in July 2025 and an internal investigation which found that professional misconduct had occurred. The investigation did not find evidence of abuse in relation to that matter. We commissioned an independent review by the Catholic Safeguarding Standards Agency and will publish the findings of that review in due course.”

A high court case by four women prevented from studying at Oxford by the government’s visa brake was rejected in August, with an appeal pending.

At least 15 students offered places at Oxford have been prevented from taking up their places this October after the government introduced a student visa “brake” on nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar, and Sudan.  The policy, introduced in March, was challenged in the High Court by women from the four affected countries, including Oxford offer-holders. 

The Home Office introduced the measure following an increase in asylum claims from people who had initially entered the UK through study and work routes. Measures are intended to “prevent abuse of the visa system” and ensure that study and skilled-worker routes were used for their “proper purpose”. The government estimated that the policy would prevent around 4,300 student visas being issued over 18 months, while reducing asylum claims from people on student visas by around 1,300. 

Claimants challenged the process by which the four countries were selected and alleged that the Home Secretary failed to consider or investigate the discriminatory impact of the student visa brake on women. 

Zeinab Mohamed, a current Sudanese student at Somerville College, attended the court case. She told Cherwell: “For many of us, this case was about more than visas. It was about whether students from countries already going through war and crisis would still have a fair chance at an education… The visa brake closes one of the few doors that were still open.”

The Court recognised that the policy had “dashed the hopes and expectation” of students who had secured places at prestigious universities, including students who had received or been shortlisted for scholarships. 

Safar Amin, a student from Afghanistan who had an offer to read an MPhil for development studies, told Cherwell: “For me, Oxford represented a possibility: the belief that, if people with the fewest resources are given an opportunity, they can become catalysts for change within societies that have endured decades of war and violence.” His offer has now been withdrawn. He told Cherwell that there was no option to defer it because the visa brake is expected to remain in place for at least 18 months, into the next application cycle. 

Another affected offer-holder, Afghan human rights activist Aisha Khurram, had planned to read for MSt in Diplomatic Studies in Oxford this October. Khurram told Cherwell that studying her offer to study in the UK was part of a life-long plan: “I somehow wanted to pursue the dream I had left off in Afghanistan which was this diplomatic studies in Oxford.” 

She told Cherwell: “Studying in Oxford is a dream in itself, but also a dream that started in Afghanistan. I wanted to take it to the next level, I would have been studying in Oxford.” 

Alongside her studies, Khurram has piloted an e-learning programme providing university-level, certified education to women in six Afghan provinces. She said she had hoped to use her time at Oxford to expand the programme through the University’s networks. “One of the reasons I also wanted to join Oxford was to bring that idea into that network and expand it with their support,” she told Cherwell. 

The Court acknowledged the “appalling systemic eradication” of women’s and girls’ access to education in Afghanistan, but ruled that the Home Secretary was not legally required to consider the impact of an immigration measure on gender inequality overseas. Since the Taliban took over Afghanistan in August 2021, women have been barred from secondary and higher education. 

Khurram added that she was “quite speechless” about the court’s resolution: “people have been finally able to survive the Taliban, then they are faced with policies that are only based on a prejudice that excludes them from opportunities or from their right to stabilise themselves and have a dignified future, just because they have a certain passport, not because they are not qualified.”

A spokesperson from the University of Oxford told Cherwell: “’We receive a significant number of talented students from countries affected by war and persecution. As a University of Sanctuary, we are committed to ensuring that outstanding offer-holders from crisis-affected backgrounds can take up their places at Oxford.”

Alongside the University, Mansfield and Somerville became Oxford’s first Colleges of Sanctuary in 2021. In a joint statement, the colleges told Cherwell: “When the student visa brake was announced earlier this year, we said that preventing talented scholars from travelling to the UK on legitimate student visas would do nothing to address the complex causes of irregular migration.

We continue to believe that ability and potential, not birthplace or background, should determine who has access to education at Oxford.”

Oxfordshire County Council has introduced a traffic filters trial in Oxford to replace the congestion charge. 

The scheme began on 28th September and can run for up to 18 months. Like the previous congestion charge, it aims to reduce traffic in and around Oxford. 

Drivers will no longer be able to pay the £5 congestion charge when travelling into the city. Instead, any drivers who pass through the traffic filters without a permit will be liable to a fine of up to £70, reduced to £35 if paid within 21 days. For the first six months, drivers will receive a warning without a fine the first time they travel through the filters without a permit. 

The traffic filters only apply to cars and motorhomes. Oxford residents, including students, can apply for permits allowing 100 days of travel through the filter zone, while Oxfordshire residents can apply for a 25-day permit. Some groups, such as blue badge holders or community health and care workers, are exempt from the traffic filters scheme.

Filters have been installed at the same six points across the city as the congestion charge: Hythe Bridge Street (near Said Business School), St Cross Road, St Clements Street, Thames Street, Marston Ferry Road, and Hollow Way. All parts of Oxford can still be reached without passing through a traffic filter, due to the reopening of Botley Road. 

The new scheme will cost £6.56 million and is funded by the government. Under UK law, any money it raises must be invested into local transport initiatives.

Councillor Gareth Epps, Cabinet Member for Transport at Oxfordshire County Council, told Cherwell: “The county council’s transport policies are designed to make it easier for people to travel into and around Oxford and make the county a better place to live, work and do business.” 

To help determine the success of the traffic filter scheme, Oxfordshire County Council has opened a public consultation, and residents can give feedback by completing an online survey. When asked whether the traffic filters will continue after the trial period, Councillor Epps told Cherwell: “The council’s future decisions about traffic filters will be influenced by many factors, including monitoring data, feedback from the six-month public consultation, the costs of operating and maintaining the scheme, legal advice, and relevant local and national policy.”