A friend of mine, Rev Phil Aspinall, was sentenced a year ago, on 31 January 2025 at Warwick Crown Court to 23 years in prison for ten counts of sexual abuse of two boys. I share here new information about the case and reflect on the question I’ve asked myself - what to do if a friend is convicted of such a terrible crime?
First, some facts. Aspinall was convicted in the context of his role in the Diocese of Coventry between 1991 and 2000 on multiple counts of “indecent assault on a male person” and separately “indecency with a child” according to the Diocese of Coventry. He was also placed on the sex offenders register for life. He turned 74 in April 2025.
Aspinall and I had known each other since 2018. We met often at conferences and for coffees and lunches. I felt shock, confusion and sadness when I heard the news from the media. I thought of the survivors of his abuse, what they must have gone through during the assaults and how hard it must have been to come forward, decades later, to provide evidence leading to his conviction.
I tried to understand how a person I knew as caring and sensitive could have carried out such terrible crimes to deserve such a heavy sentence and could have pleaded not guilty to committing them.
Once the shock settled I didn’t know how to respond. It’s embarrassing to have a friend who is a sex offender, especially if that person is a priest. I’ve realized that it would be easy to do nothing in response, to largely forget about him and what he did. It’s hard to know what to do even if one is inclined to act. Not acting avoids awkward conversations and difficult questions, such as whether church-related bodies could have done more to stop Aspinall continuing to be a risk to others.
I’ve decided to do my best to avoid this approach of being silent. As someone who knew Aspinall I have a role in drawing public attention to his case, in the hope of preventing such cases in future.
I also owe it to the survivors of Aspinall’s sexual violence not to be silent. I worry that after the courageous step they took in coming forward, they may feel isolated again, may feel no one cares about what they did. There is no publicly available information about the two survivors but I’m writing this to tell them I applaud their bravery.
In the months since Aspinall’s sentencing I requested his ‘Certificate of Conviction’ from Warwick Crown Court. It lists the 10 counts on which he was convicted, three of which were indecent assault on a boy aged 13 or younger. I contacted the Diocese of Coventry, that was unable to share further information beyond their statement.
And I read the detailed investigation of Aspinall’s activities by the Guardian’s Nick Davies published in June 1998. There have been catastrophic failures by the Church of England as a whole to respond to warning signs of sexual abuse by priests, and this investigation highlights these failures in Aspinall’s case: How the Church turned a blind eye to concerns of parishioners and of the police, who had summoned Aspinall for questioning and found pornography in his flat; and how the Church twice allowed Aspinall to change jobs to avoid having to take effective steps to stop him. At one point a father of one of Aspinall’s alleged victims was so angry at the Church he pledged to camp outside the house of the Bishop of Coventry until action was taken.
Aspinall’s crimes took place while he was a lay reader and non-stipendiary (unpaid) minister in St Peter’s parish in Coventry. For many years Aspinall was also a ‘minister in secular employment’ (MSE) based on his job at Courtaulds, the chemical company. This is the context in which we met. An MSE has a regular job but is also ordained; they typically see their regular job has the main focus of their Christian activity (rather than having a parish).
The Diocese of Coventry’s statement notes that the then Bishop of Coventry in 1997 revoked Phil’s licence, both as an MSE and in the Coventry East team of ministers. He was however given “permission to minister as an ordained process engineer and safety adviser through his involvement in organisations relating to ministry in secular employment but forbidding him to officiate in any acts of worship”. It adds that in 2013 the then Bishop “withdrew Mr Aspinall’s permission in its entirety”. So Aspinall was prohibited to minister since 1997 and banned entirely as an MSE since 2013.
This is shocking, as I know first-hand he continued to present himself as an MSE until his conviction at trial in November 2024. For instance Aspinall was an active member of the organization Chrism (Christians in Secular Ministry) since the 1990s and held leadership positions, including for many years representing Chrism at European conferences with worker priests from France, Germany and elsewhere. Aspinall only withdrew from Chrism days before his trial.
I am a Chrism member and since 2019 I attended several European conferences with him including one in October 2024. Such conferences start with an introductory round and at Aspinall’s turn he spoke about his work in the chemical industry and how he acted as an MSE in this context. He also led some of the informal church services held at these conferences.
The Bishops made their rulings to stop Aspinall from being a risk to others. I ask myself why he did not comply? Also: The Diocese of Coventry appears to have been unable to enforce their rulings on Aspinall. It is understandably tough for such a body to regularly monitor enforcement but this would seem key in preventing abusers abusing again. I requested comment on this from the Diocese but received no response at the time of writing.
Thanks for your attention. I will also continue to find ways of not being silent about this case.
