“NO FURTHER steps” might be taken against the complainant within the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) process against the previous Sub-Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, concerning alleged breaches of confidentiality within the tribunal process, it was ruled on Monday.
Two weeks ago, a tribunal cleared the Very Revd Richard Peers, who was at Christ Church for 2 years before becoming Dean of Llandaff, of constructing inappropriate comments concerning the former Dean of Christ Church, Dr Martyn Percy (News, 26 March).
He subsequently announced his decision to retire (News, 3 April), and his successor in Llandaff was named on Sunday (News, 7 April)
The tribunal judgment referred to potential breaches of confidentiality by the complainant, Karen Gadd, after she admitted to sharing documents together with her husband, Geoffrey Haines, and a former member of the General Synod, David Lamming.
After the judgment was read out in a public hearing on 21 March, Dean Peers’s counsel, Justin Gau, suggested that the alleged breaches of confidentiality might warrant further investigation.
The chair of the tribunal, Lyndsey de Mestre KC, has declined to pursue the problem any further, nonetheless. “There is a major need for finality in these proceedings,” she said.
In a ruling dated Monday, she highlighted inconsistencies within the statutory guidance on the CDM. It states that “all matters referring to an allegation must be kept strictly private and confidential. This includes written documents and material which, save for legal representatives, mustn’t be shared with third parties.”
On the following page, nonetheless, it says that documents “will be shared with those that have a legitimate reason for seeing them. For example, legal professionals, witnesses, healthcare professionals or others providing support throughout the disciplinary processes.”
Ms de Mestre concluded that there was “ambiguity as to the boundaries on the dissemination of documents and the precise use to which such documents will be put”.
For this reason, there was no “realistic probability” of substantiating a charge of contempt against Mrs Gadd, she said, and consequently ruled that no further motion must be taken.
