A PRESUMPTION that tribunals or courts hearing clergy discipline cases will sit in public is now set out within the Clergy Conduct Measure, amended by the General Synod on Tuesday after concerns were expressed by the parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee (News, 31 October 2025).
The Measure, first given final approval last 12 months, originally stipulated that the tribunal or court should sit in private except in a case where the respondent requested that it’s public, the tribunal or court was satisfied that it was within the interests of justice to take a seat in public, or that the principles provided for the sitting to be in public.
This was the “principal concern” of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner, who chairs the Legislative Committee, told the Synod. Its report really useful that the court ordinarily sit in public with “limited exceptions where it might be appropriate and justified for sittings to be held in private — reminiscent of cases regarding children”.
In 2024, Clive Scowen, a London General Synod member, proposed an amendment to the CCM setting out a presumption that the court should sit in public (News, 12 July 2024). “Open justice is vital to public confidence within the system,” he said. “Secret courts and secret hearings give rise to suspicions that something is being hidden or cover up.”
His amendment was not debated after fewer than 25 members stood. It was resisted by the Steering Committee, which argued that there was a necessity “to be certain that those that come forward to present evidence, a few of whom are very vulnerable, are usually not deterred from doing so because they’ll have to present evidence in front of the general public and press.”
Dr Warner recounted this history in his speech, before introducing an amendment providing that the tribunal or court sit in public “except in circumstances during which the tribunal or court is satisfied that it’s within the interests of justice to take a seat in private, or in such circumstances as the principles may specify”.
Speakers in favour of the amendment included the Dean of the Arches (the judge who presides within the provincial ecclesiastical court of the Archbishop of Canterbury), the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis, who told members: “Open justice is a fundamental principle of our unwritten structure — hallelujah!”
A presumption in favour of public hearing was the case in most other proceedings within the country, she said. But the person presiding would still have the option to make the hearing private “for good reason” — reminiscent of the hearing of vulnerable witnesses.
Although the amendment was overwhelmingly carried, some expressed caution about the implications of public hearings. The registrar of the diocese of Chelmsford and the diocese in Europe, Aiden Hargreaves-Smith, spoke of the “consequential impact” of the amendment.
“Transparency of process is a laudable principle and one we’re completely satisfied to support, but we should be mindful of the effect on all those involved. . . The media isn’t generally so considering the misdemeanours of solicitors or accountants and lots of others, nevertheless it is so very quick to shine a highlight on to any hint of a story involving clergy, and that impact is, in fact, felt not only by complainants and respondents, but by their families, colleagues, parishes, and lots of more more widely.”
He warned: “If media reporting and social-media comment were contained to factual reporting of the ultimate final result of proceedings, that might be one thing. But the fact is so very different, as many on this chamber know to their cost.”
The amended Measure was carried with just three abstentions within the House of Clergy. But the Synod was warned against assuming that its work on the Measure was over. Canon Lisa Battye, of Manchester diocese, said that the CCM was “not yet perfect. . . People cannot sit back pondering that is protected.” There were tons of of people that were respondents under its predecessor, the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM), still hoping that there could be redress for the suffering they’d endured since the CDM process was flawed.
She endorsed a speech from the Revd Neil Robbie, of Lichfield diocese, who had expressed concern concerning the “dual role” held by the person designated to handle grievances under the CCM, who would function each investigator and mediator.
