A PRESUMPTION that tribunals or courts hearing clergy discipline cases will sit in public is now set out in 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 year, originally stipulated that the tribunal or court should sit in private except in a case where the respondent requested that it be public, the tribunal or court was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to sit in public, or that the rules 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 recommended that the court ordinarily sit in public with “limited exceptions where it may be appropriate and justified for sittings to be held in private — such as cases relating to 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 important to public confidence in 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 need “to ensure that those who come forward to give evidence, some of whom are very vulnerable, are not deterred from doing so because they will have to give evidence in front of the 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 in which the tribunal or court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to sit in private, or in such circumstances as the rules may specify”.

Speakers in favour of the amendment included the Dean of the Arches (the judge who presides in 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 constitution — hallelujah!”

A presumption in favour of public hearing was the case in most other proceedings in the country, she said. But the person presiding would still be able to make the hearing private “for good reason” — such as the hearing of vulnerable witnesses.

Although the amendment was overwhelmingly carried, some expressed caution about the consequences 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 are happy to support, but we must be mindful of the effect on all those involved. . . The media isn’t generally so interested in the misdemeanours of solicitors or accountants and many others, but it is so very quick to shine a spotlight on to any hint of a story involving clergy, and that impact is, of course, felt not just by complainants and respondents, but by their families, colleagues, parishes, and many more more widely.”

He warned: “If media reporting and social-media comment were contained to factual reporting of the final outcome of proceedings, that would be one thing. But the reality is so very different, as many in this chamber know to their cost.”

The amended Measure was carried with just three abstentions in 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 thinking this is safe.” There were hundreds of people who were respondents under its predecessor, the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM), still hoping that there would be redress for the suffering they had endured because the CDM process was flawed.

She endorsed a speech from the Revd Neil Robbie, of Lichfield diocese, who had expressed concern about the “dual role” held by the person designated to handle grievances under the CCM, who would serve as both investigator and mediator.