Prince Charles told Peter Ball “monstrous wrongs” had been done to the disgraced bishop and that he wished he could do more to help, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse has heard.

The comments came in a letter sent by the Prince of Wales to Ball in February 1995, two years after the former bishop of Gloucester accepted a police caution for gross indecency and resigned his position in the church.

The prince also told the inquiry in a six-page statement that he had been deceived over a long period of time “about the true nature” of Ball’s activities, but denied that he had sought to influence the outcome of police investigations. He said he was unsure whether he was told about Ball’s caution until 2009.

In 2015, Ball was convicted of sexual offences against 18 young men and sentenced to 32 months in prison. An independent inquiry last year found that senior figures in the Church of England had engaged in collusion and cover-up over the case.

Extracts of correspondence between the prince and Ball were read to the inquiry on the final day of its investigation into the C of E’s handling of the case.



Prince Charles kept in touch with ex-bishop later jailed for abuse Read more

In November 1993, after a police investigation ended in the caution and his resignation, Ball wrote to Prince Charles: “Life continues to be pretty nasty for me, for it seems that my accusers still want to continue their malicious campaign. Luckily, they are beginning to show some of their fraudulent plans.”

A letter from Prince Charles, dated 16 February 1995, said: “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.”

He went on to say it was “appalling” that the archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, had “gone back on what he told me before Xmas that he was hoping to restore you to some form of ministry in the church. I suspect you are absolutely right – it is due to fear of the media …

“If it is any consolation, the archbishop has written me a letter (between you and me) in which it is also clear that he is frightened of the press – what he calls ‘public perception’, which in fact, [is] perception of events and characters based entirely on lies, invention, speculation and sensation.”

The following year, the prince referred to efforts by the Duchy of Cornwall to buy a house that could be rented by Ball and his identical twin, Michael, also a bishop.

He wrote: “I pray the Duchy will be able to find something suitable for you both in due course, but it may take a little time to locate it! I long to see you both settled somewhere that suits you and gives you peace and tranquillity – and not too far from here so you can come over more easily.”

In March 1997, the prince wrote to Ball: “I can’t bear it that the frightful, terrifying man is on the loose again and doing his worst.” He added: “I’ll see off this horrid man if he tries anything again.”

In his submission to the inquiry, the prince said he was “unable to shed any light on references … to a ‘horrid man’ or a ‘frightful and terrifying man’” after a gap of more than 20 years. However, he suspected it referred to people trying to discredit Ball.

He added that the letter to Ball needed to be read “in the context of my understanding at that time, namely that Peter Ball had been falsely accused of a single offence (the nature of which was unknown to me) … Events later demonstrated beyond any doubt, to my deep regret, that I, along with many others, had been misled.”

Charles was asked to submit a witness statement to the inquiry covering his friendship and correspondence with Ball. After protracted discussions between legal teams representing the prince and the inquiry, he submitted a letter.

In it he said he first became aware of Ball during the 1980s after hearing him preach, and found him to be “an interesting and engaging person”. From 1993 – the year Ball was cautioned by police – he invited Ball to to give holy communion at the prince’s home “from time to time”.

The pair corresponded, although contact was “normally instigated and driven” by Ball. The bishop told the prince he had been “involved in some form of ‘indiscretion’ which prompted his resignation”. Ball suggested that the complaint came from a single individual who bore a grudge.

According to the prince, the “true context and details” of the complaint did not come to his attention until Ball’s trial and conviction in 2015. “As context, it seems important to say that in the 1980s and 1990s there was a presumption that people such as bishops could be taken at their word and, as a result of the high office they held, were worthy of trust and confidence … At the time there was a presumption on my part of good faith.”

The prince said he was not aware of the “significance or impact” of the police caution and was “not aware until recently that a caution in fact carries an acceptance of guilt”.

He occasionally sent the Ball brothers “small gifts of money” as well as arranging for a house to be purchased by the Duchy of Cornwall which was rented by the Balls between 1997 and 2011.

The letter said: “At no stage did I ever seek to influence the outcome of either the police investigations into Peter Ball and nor did I instruct or encourage my staff to do so.”

He said he had ceased contact with Ball once he was convicted in 2015. “It remains a source of deep personal regret that I was one of many who were deceived over a long period of time about the true nature of Mr Ball’s activities.”

Richard Scorer, a specialist abuse lawyer representing a number of Ball’s victims, said the prince’s explanation that he was not aware of the meaning of a caution left his clients “dissatisfied”.



He said: “Prince Charles had access to the best legal advice that money can buy and, as a man in his position, a particular responsibility to check the facts. It is difficult to see his failure to do so as anything other than wilful blindness.

“His evidence, together with that of Lord Carey, the then archbishop of Canterbury, and other establishment figures who have given evidence this week, will do little to dissuade survivors from the conclusion that the British establishment aided and protected Ball and even now have failed to give a transparent account of their actions.”

Ball, 86, is too ill to give evidence in person, the inquiry has heard. The hearing ended on Friday after five days of evidence.