A Church of England inquiry into child abuse allegations against one of its most respected bishops almost 60 years after his death has been criticised as deficient by an independent review.

The review, led by Lord Carlile of Berriew, found the inquiry into Bishop George Bell was too quick to accept the allegations of the complainant "without serious investigation or inquiry".

Claims made by a woman known only as "Carol" of abuse by Bishop Bell when she was aged between five and eight in the 1950s led the Church to issue an apology and pay £15,000 in compensation.

But the inquiry was widely criticised for failing to investigate the victim's claims or seek witnesses who had known or worked for Bishop Bell during his tenure as Bishop of Chichester between 1929 and 1958.

Bishop Bell passed away a few months after his retirement.

The inquiry led to the cancellation of a planned statue in Canterbury Cathedral celebrating the bishop's work helping to rescue Jewish children transported out of Germany during the Second World War.

Bishop Bell's name was also removed from a room at the University of Chichester, while a building in the town was also renamed.

Lambeth Palace commissioned a review of the original investigation following criticism from Bishop Bell's supporters that not enough was done to substantiate the complainant's allegations, and after no other alleged victims came forward despite a helpline being set up.

Lord Carlile emphasised that the review was not to establish the truth of Carol's claims, but only to investigate the Church's handling of the case and establish best practice for handling future complaints.

"I have concluded that the Church of England failed to institute or follow a procedure which respected the rights of both sides," he wrote.

"The Church, understandably concerned not to repeat the mistakes of the past when it had been too slow to recognise that abuse had been perpetrated by clergy and to recognise the pain and damage caused to victims, has in effect oversteered in this case.

"In other words, there was a rush to judgement."

He added the Church had "failed to engage in a process which would also give proper consideration to the rights of the Bishop" and that "such rights should not be treated as having been extinguished on death".

He said that by implicitly accepting a complainant's allegations as true without fully investigating, the Church risked a flood of allegations from "unscrupulous" complainants who viewed it as "a source of easy money".

Following the review's publication, Bishop Peter Hancock, the Church of England's lead safeguarding bishop, said: "At the heart of this case was a judgment, on the balance of probabilities, as to whether, in the event that her claim for compensation reached trial, a court would have concluded that Carol was abused by Bishop Bell.

"The Church decided to compensate Carol, to apologise and to be open about the case."

He added: "It is clear from the report, however, that our processes were deficient in a number of respects, in particular the process for seeking to establish what may have happened. For that we apologise.

"Lessons can and have been learnt about how we could have managed the process better."