THE General Synod took note on Saturday of the Clergy Conduct Measure (CCM), after its revision stage, and committed it to the steering committee for final drafting. The Measure sets out the statutory framework for regulating the conduct of clergy, and provides for the alternative of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (CDM) (News, 30 June 2023).
Geoffrey Tattersall KC (Manchester), who chairs the revision committee, took the Synod through the changes, the important one being that complaints can be categorised as either a “grievance”, “misconduct”, or “serious misconduct”.
Grievances can be handled at an area level, and in a comparatively informal way, without the imposition of any penalty. Complaints of misconduct can be investigated by a case assessor. In a case where a finding of misconduct was made, the bishop would impose a penalty, but wouldn’t be permitted to remove the cleric from any office, revoke the cleric’s licence, or prohibit the cleric from ministry.
Complaints of great misconduct can be referred by the bishop to a central body of lawyers and investigators positioned inside the National Church Institutions (NCIs). After an investigation, the criticism can be subject to a report back to the President of Tribunals, who would determine whether it needs to be determined by a Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal (priests and deacons) or the Vicar-General’s Court (bishops and archbishops).
Other key changes include a recent procedure for protected parties, where a baby or one that lacks capability or has a disability wishes to bring a criticism; the ability for clerics to self-refer themselves in respect of their very own conduct; and the abolition of a call to take “no further motion” as an available final result to a criticism.
There was much to read and digest within the report, Mr Tattersall said, as he gave assurances of the very close scrutiny that had been undertaken. “We have consulted widely with victims and survivors and folks from the National Safeguarding Team, which helped us,” he said. A very good body of law had been created. “It should avoid the necessity for a full-scale hearing in some instances. We now have a comprehensive, workable, and fair system.”
In the talk that followed, the Revd Andrew Yates (Truro) said that he was broadly supportive, although was unsure concerning the reference to guidelines for clergy conduct in Clause 3; he desired to see “something that clearly operates from minimum acceptable standards”.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, said that clergy found the CDM to be a stressful experience. He desired to plead for care to be given to the timescale wherein complaints can be handled, particularly by assessors, under the CCM. “When there’s delay, clergy get particularly stressed,” he said.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), had concerns concerning the guidelines, which were drawn from the Ordinal and were “principally aspirational”. “We need something to bear the burden of ecclesiastical investigation,” he said. There was a spot for a conflated citation, perhaps, needing clear and firm decision.
Clive Scowen (London) moved an amendment that might change the usual of proof applicable on a criticism from the balance of probabilities — the usual that applies in civil law proceedings — to the next standard, based on whether the allegation within the criticism was “significantly more more likely to be true than not”.
It was a matter of the usual of proof that it was appropriate to go to, he said, “as we seek to do higher than we did within the Clergy Discipline Measure”.
Allegations of great misconduct could lead to lack of fame, home, and livelihood. “Is it acceptable for that to result when it is just barely more problematic than not?” he said. While acknowledging that the C of E can be “an outlier”, he said, “My amendment proposes a via media between civil and criminal standards. I ask Synod to come to a decision in principle that the upper standard of probability needs to be applied.”
The Revd Kate Wharton (Liverpool), who chairs the steering committee, resisted. There were two standards of proof in English law, she said: the primary based on all reasonable doubt, and the second on the balance of probabilities. The amendment, she said, can be regression. “The current one is simple to use, and thorough.”
Speakers against the amendment criticised an absence of clarity. Consequences mustn’t make any difference to the usual, and there was a risk of the Church organising its own standards and marking his own homework.
The amendment was lost. Mr Scowen moved his second amendment, which might replace the present presumption that the tribunal or court was to sit down in private, with the presumption as an alternative that it could sit in public.
It was a very important general principle in justice that justice needs to be seen to be done, he said. “Secret hearings give rise to suspicion that something is being covered up. Clergy occupy a public office and exercise a public ministry. A hearing needs to be open.”
The amendment lapsed without debate.
The Synod voted by a show of hands to take the 73 clauses of the revised Measure en bloc. It was committed to the Steering Committee for final drafting.
