A rabbi appointed to lead the flagship synagogue for the Reform Movement was the subject of an investigation by Westminster child protection services and of multiple internal complaints from staff, who have accused him of “bullying”, the JC can reveal.

Former employees of West London Synagogue, who say they were forced to leave roles due to “bullying” and “manipulation” by Rabbi David Mitchell, say they made multiple attempts to raise concerns over safeguarding of young people in his care, which the shul ignored. There was no suggestion of any physical abuse.

Westminster Council’s Safeguarding Team said staff accounts submitted to social workers in 2016 regarding Rabbi Mitchell had “questioned his ability to be a rabbi”.

An email seen by the JC sent by Leonie Bingham, child protection adviser of the Westminster Safeguarding Team, said it took concerns “exceptionally seriously” and was “truly struck” by the experiences of staff.

It told complainants that “very clear discussions regarding safeguarding have taken place as part of this process and WLS have reassured us they will be addressing the safeguarding concerns”.

Since the investigation, which decided the concerns raised by staff did not reach a threshold to involve the police, or warrant further investigation by the Council, Rabbi Mitchell has been jointly appointed alongside Helen Freeman to lead the shul when Baroness Julia Neuberger retires in March.

However, former staff said they were “shocked and worried” that he had been appointed to a position that leaves him “answerable to no one.”

One senior whistleblower claimed they were even promised by the shul that Rabbi Mitchell “would not be promoted” after they left due to his behaviour.

Complaints submitted to the shul’s HR department and senior management figures in 2015 reveal that a number of former employees raised concerns over Rabbi Mitchell’s behaviour.

Documents seen by the JC sent to the synagogue and Westminster Safeguarding Team allege Rabbi Mitchell took advantage of personal information disclosed to him by one young person about their own self-harm.

The young person, who was later offered a job by Rabbi Mitchell at the synagogue, was asked if self-harming “turned her on”.

She said: “I approached Rabbi Mitchell as a young person for support when I was struggling with depression and self-harm. He used that opportunity to delve deeper into my feelings without proper safeguarding procedures being followed and with a lack of appropriate boundaries.

“He then used this confidential, private and deeply sensitive information against me when I was working at WLS as his subordinate. His prior relationship with me meant that he was privy in a pastoral capacity to some very sensitive and personal information about me.

"He then used this information in group scenarios, saying things like, ‘Oh, I could tell you some stories about X’.”

She said the “worst occasion was during a discussion in his office. I pulled down my sleeves because I was cold and he smirked and laughed a little and then said ‘Ooh, force of habit?’ Obviously referring to my past self-harming.”

 She said Rabbi Mitchell’s behaviour made her feel increasingly concerned with regard to safeguarding and other young people, which she and another member of staff reported to the shul’s HR manager. 

She said it was “never followed up with us”. 

Other allegations from former staff about Rabbi Mitchell include hearing him joking and laughing about seeing children’s genitalia and running programmes with young people unsupervised with the intention of getting them into their “dark place”.

One employee, who was a youth worker at the time, said she was told by Rabbi Mitchell that he wanted to run a group session about getting young people to talk about “difficult stuff” that was going on in their lives but he said that he “didn’t want me in the room” as it “‘may make them less likely to open up’.”

The employee considered that getting young people to disclose such personal problems in a group session was undesirable and inappropriate.

Another employee, who chose to join WLS’s conversion class in 2011 and was offered a job by Rabbi Mitchell running the religion school cafe, said she “witnessed many of the teachers becoming more and more demoralised.”

She said under his direction “they seemed upset, fearful and deeply uncomfortable being there. And indeed there were many departures.”

When she went to apply for another job at the shul in the education team, she said was made to “feel uncomfortable” by Rabbi Mitchell during the interview.

“He decided to probe my decision to leave a previous career and continued to prod when I answered that something had happened in my personal life and I felt I could not continue on that career path.

“The prodding continued until I answered rather too honestly that I had developed depression after going through recurring pregnancy loss.”

She said Rabbi Mitchell also, apropos of nothing, asked her “how I would protect/defend him [Rabbi Mitchell] to others, which struck me as odd.”

She said other examples of inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour included hearing Rabbi Mitchell make references to “kike cock”, “lesbian cock doctor” and “eating muff” in a professional environment.

She said she also heard him make disparaging remarks about members of the strictly Orthodox community having “sexually transmitted diseases because they are allowed to use prostitutes”.

While working for Rabbi Mitchell, she began to grow increasingly distressed about her conversion appointment with the beit din as it became clear that he was to introduce her to the panel on the day.

“I was the last candidate of the day, waiting for quite some time before being called. I was escorted by Rabbi Mitchell who, as we reached the middle of the staircase turned to me and said, ‘Whatever happens today, you still have a job’ and then with his hand already on the door handle explained that he had ‘only’ told the panel that my path hadn’t been an easy one alluding to information disclosed in my job interview.”

Former employees said they were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements by the shul.

One told the JC: “In order to be updated with any action taken by the synagogue as a consequence of the investigation carried out by the Westminster Safeguarding Team we were asked to sign secrecy agreements. We said no.”

A former senior employee who retains links to the shul told the JC: “Not only did Rabbi David’s behaviour have a detrimental effect on the mental health and wellbeing of staff, he was also acting irresponsibly around children and young people. Once I observed this behaviour I submitted a report to HR.”

She said she raised concerns about Rabbi Mitchell, who was Director of Education at the time, a department she described as having a “high staff turnover.

“The education floor was resentful, fearful and unhappy,” she said.

When she raised concerns with the shul’s senior Rabbi, Julia Neuberger, she was told “Rabbi David’s behaviour could not be changed and that he has a very strong work ethic and brought lots to the community.”

She said Rabbi Mitchell oversaw an item on the agenda of a staff meeting “called ‘Nudnik’ of the week, where staff members were encouraged by Rabbi David to say who in the community had annoyed them”.

She said that she and others decided to speak out now because they were “worried about the wellbeing of those that come into contact with him, especially in a pastoral sense,” since the shul appointed him — despite being aware of the concerns.

Former staff members said they had “no success” raising issues with Rabbi Mitchell directly, the HR department at the shul, or with the shul’s chief executive, chairman and senior rabbi.

After “years” or trying to get the shul to do something about their concerns they approached the Movement for Reform Judaism as a “last attempt,” and before approaching Westminster Safeguarding Team. It was after this that a group of staff members approached Westminster Safeguarding Team with their concerns.

“As soon as the synagogue heard we were speaking to people we were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements,” one whistleblower confirmed.

A report put together by an expert in charity governance on behalf of the complainants and submitted to the Movement of Reform Judaism and the Assembly of Reform Rabbis UK said: “What is clear is that outside of the emotional and personal injury suffered, the drive to address this comes from the knowledge that there are others in the same situation.”

It also suggested that “a lack of infrastructure raises the potential of unsafe behaviours being unchallenged elsewhere”.

One whistleblower said: “They [the movement] tried their best but they couldn’t do anything. Everyone was scared of Rabbi Mitchell.

“We were told there was nothing the Movement could do because each shul has its own charity status and operates independently. The Assembly said they had no processes which enabled them to hold colleagues to account. And now it is quite concerning they have appointed him to the highest position in the synagogue.”

A statement issued on behalf of Rabbi Mitchell said that he “strenuously denies that he has acted inappropriately during his long service with the West London Synagogue.

“He has always strived to support the community, and will continue to do so in the future”.

A spokesperson for West London Synagogue said: “Over five years ago, a complaint was made to West London Synagogue related to one of its rabbis, David Mitchell.

“This was not a formal complaint and the informal concerns raised were dealt with under West London Synagogue’s normal employment practice. 

“We understand a complaint was also made to the Movement for Reform Judaism.

“Some months later, the complainants went to the local authority, which — having reviewed the complaint independently — advised that the matter didn’t warrant any referral elsewhere and should simply be dealt with under West London Synagogue’s normal internal management procedures, which it was.

“The complainants were notified of the outcome at the time .

“We are delighted that David has accepted appointment as our co-Senior Rabbi together with Rabbi Helen Freeman.

“The appointment committee was aware at the time of the appointment that historic complaints had previously been made.

“The nature of the complaint remains confidential, as you would expect, in line with normal employment practice.”