The President of Clergy Discipline Tribunals, Sir Stephen Males, has responded to an oral request from the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council that the Deputy President’s decision, refusing permission for the request of the Bishop of Warrington to make a complaint of misconduct out of time, should be provided to the trustees of the Archbishops’ Council and to the senior staff of the Council.
The full text of Sir Stephen’s decision on this request has, at his direction, been published on the Church of England website.
You can read it here: IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE RT REVD JOHN PERUMBALATH, FORMER BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL
In a few words, these matters are private and confidential unless both parties agree to them made available to Archbishops’ Council. Adding, “it would be preferable for any further public comment on this matter to be properly informed.”
So, we really should stop gossiping and speculating from a position of ignorance as a result of sensational reporting in the mass media.
Sir Stephen Males also noted: “The complaint against the respondent has received considerable publicity,” and “She [i.e. complainant) also expressed concern that the confidentiality of the process would not be respected.”
I agree. My comment below was not about this particular case, it was about the confused tortuous logic and legal wrangling.
And indeed, shouldn’t whether an individual is or is not vulnerable itself be kept private?
Yes, it should, but how do you stop a person going to the media anonymously?
I don’t think the assessment should have been included in Sir Stephen’s decision letter if it was to be published.
What a load of nonsense. It seems to depend on whether the claimant was a vulnerable adult at the time of the incident. We have discussed the issue of vulnerability and safeguarding before. In my view it simply muddies the water. Bad conduct is bad conduct. Now, take this incident. And taking note of St Augustine’s perceptive views on time. There was a time before the incident. Was the claimant vulnerable then? There was a time after the incident. Was the claimant vulnerable then? There was a time at the incident. As St Augustine says, this does not exist, now… Read more »
I thought the C of E taught that everyone can all be vulnerable (apart from clergy who are the butt of a CDM complaint)? Does not the power imbalance in a relationship count?
And the definition of a vulnerable adult which applies in CDM proceedings is??
I think most would agree that, whatever the situation prior to an incident, everybody is vulnerable afterwards. The situation at the time of the incident does not exist, as St Augustine said.
From my own involvement in a CDM my understanding is that the clergy and safeguarding measure of 2016 defines a vulnerable adult as one who through physical or mental impairment is unable to protect themselves from abuse. This impairment may include old age, emotional fragility or other factors. I don’t have the exact words to hand. The President of tribunals will make a judgement on that definition. I am not saying that is good or bad, merely that is how it is done.
Correction. Safeguarding and clergy discipline measure 2016
Meaning of “child” and “vulnerable adult” (1 )In this Measure, “child” means a person aged under 18. (2) In this Measure, “vulnerable adult” means a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, old age, emotional fragility or distress, or otherwise; and for that purpose, the reference to being impaired is to being temporarily or indefinitely impaired. (3)The Archbishops’ Council may by order amend this section so as to amend the definition of “vulnerable adult” [and, in consequence of an amendment… Read more »
A vulnerable adult bla bla bla whose ability to protect himself or herself from bla bla bla is significantly impaired through bla bla bla….
This is nonsense. If there has been an incident of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation, then clearly they have not been able to protect themselves and therefore are vulnerable. If there has not been an incident, then they are not vulnerable.
Kafka comes to mind. Circular arguments come to mind.
What kind of personality drafts these ridiculous illogical meaningless regulations?
Just get rid of it, and use best practices from better secular organisations.
The secular definition relating to adults (from the Care Act 2014) is: “This section [safeguarding] applies where a local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that an adult in its area (whether or not ordinarily resident there)— (a) has needs for care and support (whether or not the authority is meeting any of those needs), (b) is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect, and (c) as a result of those needs is unable to protect himself or herself against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it.” I think that this means the following logic applies… Read more »
“….vulnerable adult means a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, old age, emotional fragility or distress, or otherwise; and for that purpose, the reference to being impaired is to being temporarily or indefinitely impaired.”
presumably?
Section 6 (2) of the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016 provides this definition:
6 (2) In this Measure, “vulnerable adult” means a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, old age, emotional fragility or distress, or otherwise; and for that purpose, the reference to being impaired is to being temporarily or indefinitely impaired.
I am categorically only commenting on a hypothetical general case, not the specific case of the Bishop of Liverpool. I wonder if the definition is typically correctly applied. The temptation is to consider the state of the complainant immediately before any incident but, if any incident stretches over some minutes (or even some seconds) it seems to me that the incident itself might render a complainant vulnerable so that the complainant is vulnerable for some aspects of the alleged conduct even if not initially so, perhaps even only temporarily but that meets the language of the measure. A modification from… Read more »
Exactly. The whole legal nonsense is made of sand.
Kate, I simply responded to the request from Susannah (no ‘h’) for a definition and had no intention then, or now, to enter into ‘discussion’ of any specifics of the Liverpool scenario or how the provision should work in practice. Some of the contributions by others here are, in my view, highly regrettable, two possibly defamatory (certainly disrespectful of the judiciary), and made without evidence or competence. I believe all will change once the CDM is replaced by the CCM. The one year rule is scrapped for serious misconduct but remains for ‘non-serious’ misconduct, with discretions given to the President… Read more »
I agree. We should not comment on any specific case but I do think the wording in the Measure would benefit from an amendment to clarify some possible ambiguities.
As I point out above, the existing Measure now has a Iimited life, shortly to be repealed, and there can be no possibility of amending it. I’m not necessarily up to speed about the present status of the CCM which replaces it, but its enactment is in the pipeline. Like all C of E Measures, it has to be approved by Parliament and introduced there in the House of Lords by a Lord Spiritual – incidentally one of their functions overlooked by the ‘abolitionists’.
Why? Don’t other secular organisations or other denominations manage perfectly well without their codes of conduct being approved by Parliament?
I’m really not trying to be rude or abrasive, but I think somebody should take counter or contrary positions, in order to tease out the underlying issues.
See my reply below to Susannah (no ‘h’) and the succinct statutory definition of impairment being temporary or indefinite.
The reasoning provided in the judgment is doublespeak nonsense. There are other clergy who have been promptly suspended, defenestrated and dismissed from office because of CDMs where the adult complaining is not “vulnerable” in the strict sense Judge Males applies in this case. So why do those clergy get thrown under a bus, but when a bishop is accused, the definition of “vulnerable adult” magically moves to a far tighter definition that excludes the complainant? The hypocrisy and inconsistency is breathtaking. The sooner the CofE is rid of this systemic culture of injustice, the better. Until then, no clergy are… Read more »
You really are missing the point, David.
Of course CDMs take place where the adult complaining is not “vulnerable.” The point is that these complaints will have taken place within 12 months of any allegation.
S.6(2) of the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016 =
In this Measure, “vulnerable adult” means a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, old age, emotional fragility or distress, or otherwise; and for that purpose, the reference to being impaired is to being temporarily or indefinitely impaired.
That means everybody, all the time ! Seriously, why on earth is the church spending time and money on defining these terms? I think in secular organisations the term used is ‘adult at risk’. But my point is clear and broad. When someone behaves badly, it is not relevant whether the person is an adult at risk or not, moreover it can be very difficult a priori to determine whether they are at risk or not. Was the Spanish women football captain an adult at risk? I don’t think so, apart from being at risk from her coach. If my… Read more »
“When someone behaves badly, it is not relevant whether the person is an adult at risk or not” That’s not quite the reason for the time delay. But the basic premise for a delay is not unreasonable. As time goes by, memories fade and indeed are elaborated. Documents, if they existed in the first place, become less available. Electronic records are deleted. It becomes progressively harder to have a fair process. To take a process which has similar scope, the limit for most employment tribunal claims is three months, and for the rest it is six months [*], again with… Read more »
I see your point, but with respect would nuance it a bit. In each case there is bad behaviour. It is deviating from the expected codes of conduct. But the penalty might be different depending on the victim. If a coach shouts at me, I shout back, with maybe a Churchillian gesture, and a smile. A child would not do that. There is a big difference between shouting ‘keep up, don’t let him get away’ and ‘you are useless, why are you running’. The former is acceptable, although I still returned a Churchillian gesture. The latter is not, and would… Read more »
Sensible comments. One could also add that what might motivate a non-vulnerable person to initiate a complaint outside of the prescribed timeframe? Were there other contextual issues at play in the specific case the Deputy President of the Tribunal had to rule on?
There’s any number of possible reasons, and it’s very contextual as to whether they are good reasons. For example, two people might have informal mediation, or just a discussion between themselves, to correct a situation. As part of that the alleged offender states that they will alter their behaviour. The original complainant then sees the behaviour happening again to other people and, as well as encouraging a complaint by the new targets, reasserts their own complaint formally. In some contexts that’s OK, in others it’s procedurally barred, in others the fact of the informal resolution is itself a disciplinary problem… Read more »
There’s nothing preventing you from making complaints about any improper conduct at the time or within a 12 month period. That’s the point.
Sorry, utterly disagree. In my congregation there is A. who is over 90, frail and suffering dementia. They need a different level of care, protection and vigilance around them when they attend church services and events, because they are clearly vulnerable, and defining them as such for the purposes of church life is a helpful and important thing to do. I also have M, who is in their 20s, fit, healthy and of sound and percipient mind. It is good to know that although like any human being they have moments of vulnerablilty, M is not a vulnerable adult. They… Read more »
I understand, but I think this misses the point. In neither case would it be acceptable to be rude, bullying or coercive, although the outcome may be different.
I always worry about the word ‘is’, coming from an information modelling background. Usually ‘is’ means ‘has the role of’, and has temporal attributes.
Your general point that condition and context are important is clearly true. But my problems are much more basic.
I would counsel against assuming that someone such as M is not vulnerable. While it can be easy to observe that someone is vulnerable, being confident that someone is not vulnerable is much more difficult. People can hide their vulnerability. It is best left to doctors to make that assessment.
Thank- you all for so many replies! There is clearly a wide margin for interpretation/ discretion here. If the would- be complainant is turned down, do they have recourse to any appeal process ?
Not that I’m aware of but they could of course go public via the media.
This is presumably what happened which is why the discussion is happening.Though it is a big assumption that the clergy complainant was the person who went to the press, and may well not be a fair one.
But my question was a serious one- is there a legitimate appeals route?There are two very clear comments by Interested Observer written before this one but which will presumably appear below because I only read Jack’s post this morning
The current situation is a tragedy and will have satisfied neither party
I made no such assumption. However, there were two public statements released by her and widely circulated before and after Bishop JP resignation. He also released a statement which was published in a blog.
Given this is legislation, there might be an appeal route to the High Court but it would have to be on a point of law. You’d have to ask a lawyer.
So any complainant who left it more than 12 months to submit her/his allegations would have to show that s/he was unable to protect her/himself from abuse (such as sexual harassment), due to emotional fragility or distress at the time and/or during the intervening period.
Unreasonable?
Thank you, it is essential to have this in front of you when you are examining whether the individual, circumstances and situation meet the threshold. Of course, I like to think a double dose of common sense helps too, especially when you examine power and control.
For the sake of further clarity the following Church of England definitions need to be bourn in mind; Sexual Abuse (children) “Forcing or enticing a child or young person to take part in sexual activities, not necessarily involving a high level of violence, whether or not the child is aware of what is happening. The activities may involve physical contact, including assault by penetration (for example, rape or oral sex) or non-penetrative acts such as masturbation, kissing, rubbing and touching outside of clothing. They may also include non-contact activities, such as involving children in looking at, or in the production of, sexual images,… Read more »
Why does the CoE try to define these terms?
Why does it not simply refer to secular definitions?
Who is paying for CoE to redefine terms?
Who does the CoE employ to continue maintaining these definitions over the coming millennia?
There is much more to abuse than sexual abuse.
“The activities may involve physical contact, including assault by penetration (for example, rape or oral sex)”
This is the sort of stuff that ends up causing huge problems. In UK law, assault by penetration and rape are by definition different (S.1 and S.2 Sexual Offences Act 2003). So “assault by penetration (for example rape)” is nonsense.
The quoted sentence also implies acts that are assault by penetration, not rape, but are oral sex. Most cases involving “oral sex” are S.1(1)(a) rape, and that legislation was explicitly drafted to _remove_ the distinction.
The church should not be redefining criminal law.
Thank you for a specific example of the dangers of the church trying to redefine criminal law. Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Let the experts do their work and stop meddling.
The more significant point, surely, is to note from paragraph 4 of the President’s decision that it was an oral request by William Nye to Edward Dobson (not, note, directly to the Deputy President, and presumably at the request of a member of the Archbishops’ Council who wished to remain anonymous) to provide to the trustees of the Archbishops’ Council (i.e. its members) and ‘the senior staff of the Council’ (not identified), but not to publish for everyone to be able to read, a copy of HH David Turner KC’S decision refusing to extend time. Given the criticism of, and… Read more »
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree and this merits deliberation.
“Sexual abuse”, as defined, is clearly not limited to “vulnerable adults.” It covers “sexual harassment,” a broad and somewhat subjective category, as is “inappropriate looking or touching,” and “sexual teasing or innuendo.” Is it reasonable for allegations about these to be made years later?
Maybe the definition of “vulnerable adult” needs reconsideration too.
However, as it stands, this is not the case and the permission of both complainant and respondent is required if confidentiality is to be set aside. I can see reputational dangers for both parties in this.
It is widely known that victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment can take years after the event to recover sufficiently to make a complaint. Therefore it is reasonable, and to be expected, that complaints may be made years later. The one-year rule does not allow for this, and is unjust.
Some while ago I remember looking up 3 separate pieces of research which, as I remember them, suggested the AVERAGE time victims took to report abuse was around 21 to 25 years AFTER the abuse had ceased. Again, as I remember it, one of the surveys sought to investigate whether their sample suggested any difference between men & women. The suggestion was that men took around 4 years longer, so for example men on average might take 26 years and women 22, again once the abuse had ceased. If this average is the median (to be fair it is perhaps… Read more »
And that’s why there’s no time limit for children and vulnerable adults. I assume part of the consideration about permitting a timed-out allegation will have been the relationship and dynamic between complainant and responder, and nature of the alleged sexual assault and any trauma this is reported to have caused.
The research does not show that ‘non-vulnerable’ adults take any less time to recover enough to make a complaint. The one-year rule does not allow for the fact that an adult who would have been considered not vulnerable at the time of the incident, may well be vulnerable during and after it. It doesn’t distinguish between ‘vulnerable before’ and ‘vulnerable after’. It confuses the aggravating factor of vulnerability beforehand, with the impaired ability to act afterwards.
This was one of the major learnings from the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. It takes many people a long time to reach a point where they are willing to go through the trauma of raising allegations of abuse.
Let us take a specific case. Smyth physical torture of adults. I don’t think these adults would fall easily into the category of vulnerable adult – they were very well educated, over 18, and considered to be future leaders (and some of them became so). But of course it took them years to come forward, and many remain anonymous. The extent of the torture brought criminal charges within scope. But what if it was not criminal, but considered to contravene codes of conduct? This distinction between vulnerable and non-vulnerable is nonsense. Obviously, in other settings such as social care, the… Read more »
Oh dear,
Rearrange these words to see where the C of E is currently:
public their linen in washing dirty
Worse than that. They are brandishing a large hamper labeled ‘noisesome clouts ‘ (Dirty washing is too clear) and dancing up and down chanting ‘We’re not telling you what we are doing with this 😝😝’
What strikes me is not the legal niceties, but why on earth the CofE still had this ludicrously short 12 month CDM time limit for registering abuse complaints. Short time limits in such cases were discredited decades ago, but the CofE sat on its hands for years, rather than taking appropriate early action to make the system fair to victims.
Everybody of a more lowly rank is a vulnerable adult, full stop.
Ecclesiastical law is an ass.
Refusal to pursue complaints isn’t going to help the CofE escape scandal. In the eyes of a retired judge, an inquiry which does not occur can only ever imply that nothing happened. In the eyes of the general public, it simply shows people who have something to hide.
“I retired under a cloud following multiple allegations but because an investigation was stayed by my friends nothing actually happened and I am therefore entirely innocent” is not a convincing argument to anyone who matters.
It wasn’t a “refusal” – the legitimate grounds for convening a CDM were simply not met in this case.
Quite right and proper. I’m pleased His Honour has refused to do this just because Mr Nye wants it. Rightly or wrongly, the Deputy President’s decision was taken pursuant to a legal process that carried the expectation of confidentiality. Nye, and the Archbishops’ Council have absolutely no right to see that decision without the permission of the parties to that process.
Personally, my view is the Deputy President made the wrong decision. But the President is right to respect due process now. It is not for Nye to subvert the judiciary – finally we see a degree of independence!
But Realist, without knowing the substance of the complaint or the arguments presented for vulnerability and the delay in the complaint, you cannot conclude that.
I can, because my conclusion is based on a procedural matter and not the substance of the case or whether it is right or wrong that CDMs are conducted in private. The current procedure for handling a CDM complaint is that it is done confidentially – I.e. in private and not in the public domain. This is the procedure all parties to it expect and complaints are made, responded to, heard and decisions are made on this procedural basis. To then not observe it after the event would be a very serious breach of that process, and the trust of… Read more »
Realist, but the definition of sexual abuse used by the Church of England is all encompassing and includes sexual harassment, inappropriate looking, and sexual teasing or innuendo. These behaviours doesn’t require proof of intent or motivation. They’re based on whether there’s evidence of what’s alleged to have taken place and on the experience of the complainant. Sexual abuse (adults) Rape, indecent exposure, sexual harassment, inappropriate looking or touching, sexual teasing or innuendo, sexual photography or filming, “revenge porn”, subjection to pornography or witnessing sexual acts, sexual assault, sexual acts to which the adult has not consented or was pressured into… Read more »
I am not criticising the lawyers or the ruling. Lawyers make a living from legal niceties. My criticism is that: the legal discussions tie everybody in knots the legal structures and language are out of step with the secular world legalistic approaches which ignores common sense no evolution of legal rules definitions of who is, or is not, vulnerable do not particularly help, especially when used to apply legal rulings common sense, anybody? if I play rugby with a 30 year old and he gets a bruise, that is entirely different to deliberately hurting a 90 year old. what the… Read more »
this is a general comment on things at the moment so i hope its ok to post here. Could there be a bigger story about the Cof E itself. There seems to be a drip drip of stories. is something bigger about to be revealed
What would be the consequences if an independent safeguarding body got rid of this ‘CoE statutory’ legalistic nonsense, and applied ‘normal statutory’ laws and secular best practices?
It would mean some steps towards disestablishment? No more statutory CDM proceedings? No more CDM statutes? Loss of control and power? No more special treatment?
Hence why some voters were so scared of option 4?
What do they have to fear?
IIUC it can take an abused person years to feel able to raise a matter, whether or not it be seen as a formal ‘complaint’. People in power can be oblivious of the ‘reign of terror’ they may be creating, esp when there are people ‘swearing’ to ‘canonical obedience’. All this discussion about definitions, e.g about ‘vulnerability’. Are people really expected to put up with or stand up to poor treatment? Where is love, respect, flourishing? I can understand, and sympathise with, anyone holding back on coming forward, especially in the vain hope of having sympathy shown, and a possibility… Read more »
Exactly. Who cares about the legal definitions? If I made any comment on them, it was to demonstrate that they are nonsense. What would Jesus have said about these legalistic debates?
I always remember advice about legal contracts. They are not there to ensure a project goes well. They are there in case a project fails.
Hiding behind legalistic definitions – I won’t say in words what I think about that, but I see a lot of it going on.
I think we should all care about legal definitions. Jesus cared about the legal definition of what can and cannot be done on the Sabbath enough to change it, not to abolish it.
I bring new wine into old bottles. Jesus is primary, the law is secondary.
I absolutely care about legal definitions. That is why I call them out when they are ridiculous. But they are useful servants, not masters.
But I also repeat my claim that some hide behind legalities. Statutes are revised all the time, and those not engaging with this ‘carpet moving under my feet’ will be left in an empty room.
Let’s not get into a long discussion about Romans.
“Who cares about the legal definition.”
We all should!
Hmmm …. remember a certain Martyn Percy and “HairGate in the Belfry”? The appalling weaponisation of safeguarding against him and the misuse of safeguarding processes and procedures? The damage caused to his reputation and mental wellbeing?
These definitions, procedures and processes are there to protect both the alleged abuser and the person alleging abuse.
Maybe I should have been more specific. Who cares about legal definitions of ‘vulnerable’?
Remember also that being within the law is not the same as being moral. Not having been convicted of any crime is hardly a recommendation for any priestly office.
Part of my despair is this terrible confusion between statutory and criminal, and simple bad behaviour.
The law should be a servant, not a master. If the law doesn’t make sense, it should be changed.
This 12 months for non-vulnerable adults is nonsense, the processes and procedures need to be changed.
I didn;t follow those cases, apart from coming across them in the media. But aren;t they examples of a legalistic attitude, lack of common sense, and poorly (too specific) drafting of regulations?
You can draft law into a weapon. Isn;t that what Jesus experienced?
Plus, would it not have been so much better if an external independent agency had determined the safeguarding risk, rather than the minster hierarchy?
Happy Jack, I respect both parties in the situation you have for your own reasons aired again in this public place. Both parties have been profoundly affected. In the febrile atmosphere that seems to be occurring not only here at TA but on con evo blogs …eg Ian Pauls , Mr A Brown and other self published blogs .. awareness and compassion and care should be paramount. Sadly in some spaces this is lacking. I do not see that self awareness or compassion in your above post. Safeguarding issues are always complex and an awareness of the hurt and retraumatisation… Read more »
I’m afraid I also can come over as rather abrasive and confrontational. I apologise for that, but I do not apologise for trying to put forward contrary views.
Tempering my words may have undesirable consequences. I stopped being quiet and unassuming many decades ago.
If we are being precise, it was ‘Hairgate’ in the cathedral sacristy, not the belfry!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/20/priest-insulted-by-andrew-gwynne-in-whatsapp-group-calls-for-him-to-resign
Nobody is saying she was vulnerable.
Nobody is saying there are any criminal acts
But if any priest or bishop was involved in this, I would expect them to be disciplined as contravening codes of conduct, as was the Labour MP.
Simples. It is bad behaviour.
I don’t think the Labour party has an extensive special statutory structure, nor are there any discussions on legal details and definition.
I’m not sure what your mission is in confining much ecclesiastical law to the bin as ‘nonsense’. Most of the discussion on this thread will shortly become redundant when the Clergy Conduct Measure 2025 repeals and replaces the present CDM 2003 (etc.).
Good. Then maybe CDM 2025 can also become redundant in good time?
Joking aside, I am simply wondering about the interactions between future independent safeguarding organisations (option 4) and existing ecclesiastical law. I see a train wreck coming. I haven’t seen any discussions on these conflicts, which also cut to the heart of the issue of disestablishment.
Or maybe there is some (mis)conception that option 4 – safeguarding independence – and ecclesiastical law can continue in sublime mutual disregard?
If so, it is not independence. It depends on ecclesiastical law.
Please justify the existence of ecclesiastical law.
I recommend that you read the Clergy Conduct Measure 2025 (not CDM 2025) when it is enacted shortly. It corrects identified shortcomings in the CDM 2003 (which the church accepts is no longer fit for purpose). The need for this legislation is self-evident and doesn’t call for justification of “the existence of ecclesiastical law”.