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 replacement 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 main one being that complaints would be categorised as either a “grievance”, “misconduct”, or “serious misconduct”.
Grievances would be dealt with at a local level, and in a relatively informal way, without the imposition of any penalty. Complaints of misconduct would be investigated by a case assessor. In a case where a finding of misconduct was made, the bishop would impose a penalty, but would not be permitted to remove the cleric from any office, revoke the cleric’s licence, or prohibit the cleric from ministry.
Complaints of serious misconduct would be referred by the bishop to a central body of lawyers and investigators located within the National Church Institutions (NCIs). After an investigation, the complaint would be subject to a report to the President of Tribunals, who would decide whether it should 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 new procedure for protected parties, where a child or person who lacks capacity or has a disability wishes to bring a complaint; the facility for clerics to self-refer themselves in respect of their own conduct; and the abolition of a decision to take “no further action” as an available outcome to a complaint.
There was much to read and digest in 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 people from the National Safeguarding Team, which helped us,” he said. A good body of law had been created. “It should avoid the need for a full-scale hearing in some instances. We now have a comprehensive, workable, and fair system.”
In the debate that followed, the Revd Andrew Yates (Truro) said that he was broadly supportive, although was unsure about the reference to guidelines for clergy conduct in Clause 3; he wanted 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 wanted to plead for care to be given to the timescale in which complaints would be dealt with, particularly by assessors, under the CCM. “When there is delay, clergy get particularly stressed,” he said.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), had concerns about the guidelines, which were drawn from the Ordinal and were “basically aspirational”. “We need something to bear the weight of ecclesiastical investigation,” he said. There was a place for a conflated citation, perhaps, needing clear and firm decision.
Clive Scowen (London) moved an amendment that would change the standard of proof applicable on a complaint from the balance of probabilities — the standard that applies in civil law proceedings — to a higher standard, based on whether the allegation in the complaint was “significantly more likely to be true than not”.
It was a question of the standard of proof that it was appropriate to visit, he said, “as we seek to do better than we did in the Clergy Discipline Measure”.
Allegations of serious misconduct could result in loss of reputation, home, and livelihood. “Is it acceptable for that to result when it is only slightly more problematic than not?” he said. While acknowledging that the C of E would be “an outlier”, he said, “My amendment proposes a via media between civil and criminal standards. I ask Synod to decide in principle that the higher standard of probability should 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 first based on all reasonable doubt, and the second on the balance of probabilities. The amendment, she said, would be regression. “The current one is straightforward to apply, and thorough.”
Speakers against the amendment criticised a lack of clarity. Consequences should not make any difference to the standard, and there was a risk of the Church setting up its own standards and marking his own homework.
The amendment was lost. Mr Scowen moved his second amendment, which would replace the current presumption that the tribunal or court was to sit in private, with the presumption instead that it would sit in public.
It was an important general principle in justice that justice should 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 should 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.