Update
There has been a second press release (and the Church Times article has been updated).
Bishop’s suspension is lifted after appeal lodged
August 10, 2022The suspension of the Rt Rev Anne Dyer has been lifted with immediate effect, after the Bishop of Aberdeen & Orkney gave notice of an appeal against the decision to suspend her from office.
It was announced earlier that Bishop Anne had been suspended by the Primus, Bishop Mark Strange, while canonical process takes place following receipt of formal complaints alleging misconduct by the Bishop of Aberdeen & Orkney.
The suspension ceases to have effect until the appeal is determined by the Episcopal Synod. It is expected that a meeting of the Episcopal Synod will be arranged as soon as possible.
Press release from the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Canonical process confirmed in Diocese of Aberdeen & Orkney
August 10, 2022The Scottish Episcopal Church can confirm that two formal complaints have been received which allege misconduct by the Rt Rev Anne Dyer, Bishop of Aberdeen & Orkney.
Due process will now follow, through the clergy disciplinary canon.
The Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, Bishop Mark Strange, has suspended the Bishop from office until further notice, following commencement of the disciplinary process.
The suspension will be kept under regular review. It does not constitute disciplinary action and does not imply any assumption that misconduct has been committed.
The Rt Rev Dr John Armes, Bishop of Edinburgh, will serve as Acting Bishop of the Diocese of Aberdeen & Orkney during this suspension while continuing his duties in the Diocese of Edinburgh, and an Acting Convener will be appointed to the Institute Council.
The Primus said: “The decision to suspend has been taken bearing in mind the interests of both those making the accusations and Bishop Anne.
“I would now ask that those who pray, pray now for the Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney, for those personally involved in this process, and for Bishop John. Please allow the process to follow its path without speculation or pre-judgment so that, at the end, all have been heard and all have been respected.”
The complaints will be considered in the first instance by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee. The full disciplinary process is detailed under Canon 54 of the Scottish Episcopal Church Code of Canons.
The independent mediation process set up in October last year in response to difficulties experienced in the Diocese of Aberdeen & Orkney is expected to be put on hold pending the outcome of the disciplinary process.
The Church Times reports this with background information: Bishop Dyer is suspended from duty in Aberdeen & Orkney.
Following Bishop Dyer’s decision to appeal against her suspension I understand her suspension has been rescinded. Episcopal Synod to take place.
+ Anne has appealed and her suspension suspended while the Bishops consider the appeal.
The SEC bishops must have exhausted the good will of their flocks by now. After rejecting the perfectly good review they commissioned they now must adjudicate the suspension debacle themselves. After the Primus’ dewy eyed moment celebrating unity in diversity at the Lambeth Conference the reality of division and maintaining order now hits home.
On what grounds was the Torrance report rejected?
A statement on the SEC website in Sept 2021 said, ‘The College is aware that certain voices within the Diocese appear not to have been adequately heard in the Torrance report. Therefore, it intends to adjust the emphasis of the next stage of review and move to an independent process of mediation in the Diocese to ensure that all positions are represented and to enable the Diocese as a whole to move forward.’ Whether that is reasonable and whether there are other grounds for rejecting the conclusion of the report I wouldn’t know. Looking in from afar, it seems the… Read more »
It is not at all clear to me how the cause of Christian charity – or the gospel – is served by unpleasant, deeply inaccurate and ill-informed comments like this.
Apologies Jim. It is none of my business.
I should probably hesitate to intervene here, but I struggle to see what is unpleasant about Stephen’s comment. He quoted from the SEC website and made an observation – what is so awful about that? Of course, it may be that you know something the rest of us don’t which causes you to be so defensive.
I think the bishops have been wise in trying to lower the temperature in A&O. Whatever bishop Anne may or may not done there is clearly a faction in the diocese trying to hound her out because they couldn’t bear the appointment of a female, LGBT-affirming bishop. That’s not to say that the specific complaints are made up but the way in which certain people seem to have used their influence to get The Times to publish their side of things does not point to good faith. It’s important that the college of bishops take care to tease out any… Read more »
“Whatever bishop Anne may or may not done”. Those people who have made complaints of bullying are the victims in this sorry saga not the bully.
Charges have been made against the Bishop. Is anyone seriously suggesting they should not undergo due process?
I am not saying that. Jo B is trying to make the case that the bishop is a victim. She is not. I have seen the same scenario acted out in a case with which I am familiar. Namely the bully made out by their supporters to be a victim.
The bishop being a bully does not preclude her being a victim of the same.
The Torrance Report specifically refuted that proposition. If you think it’s “clearly” the case, perhaps you could indicate what evidence is available to you that was not available to Prof Torrance.
A strange disciplinary process whereby a suspension is lifted the minute an appeal is lodged. There should be a separate and perhaps expedited process for examining the need for a suspension or otherwise, but the complainants will lose confidence in the whole process at the yo yoing going on here.
So let me see if I have got this right: in England a complaint like this leads to instant suspension which is only lifted after extensive and lengthy investigation, even when a police investigation, if involved, has found no case to answer (see Martyn Percy’s experience) but in Scotland the suspension is lifted if the alleged perpetrator objects and appeals. Both approaches seem to me to be wrong. We’ve got to take complaints seriously and also give the accused a right to defend themselves.
In England episcopal suspension is handled differently, and Martyn Percy’s case can’t be used as an example. The archbishop (of either Province) may only suspend a bishop with the consent of the two senior (by length of service, not other rank) diocesan bishops of that Province. The suspended bishop may be reinstated at any time. The two most recent examples that I can think of were ‘compromised’ by bishop A retiring before a CDM was decided, leaving the C of E (also moving from England) and joining the RC church. Bishop B, having been kept in the dark about his… Read more »
Thanks – that clarifies the system. In England, I meet a number of clergy who live in fear of being on the receiving end of a CDM – often for no good reason, it is just the climate of fear CDM has engendered.
Disciplinary ‘rhetoric’ always describes a suspension as a neutral act, but it never seems like that to those subject to it. It can be essential of course to protect vulnerable people or to avoid further potential misconduct. Equally I have dealt with other cases where the bishop has used it to apply pressure on the cleric to go. Without exception, in my experience where the bishop used suspension in a manipulative way it always backfired on him/her, but sadly nonetheless took a huge toll on the cleric. Bruising encounters like those usually mean a vocation is sabotaged and in some… Read more »
As you rightly say, Martyn Percy’s case is not comparable, since he was suspended as Dean by resolution of the Christ Church Governing Body, not pursuant to any decision by the Bishop of Oxford under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003. Indeed, during Dr Percy’s first suspension in 2018-19 (pending the Smith tribunal into the ‘salary-related’ charges—all dismissed by the retired High Court judge, Sir Andrew Smith, after an expensive 11-day hearing), he was given permission to officiate (‘PTO’) in the diocese by the bishop. Bishop A, Dr Peter Forster, the former Bishop of Chester and now a member of the… Read more »
Well, you are privy to information and documents which I am not. I was aware of the Bishop of Lincoln’s rebuke. I have a clear recollection that Archbishop Sentamu delegated the CDM of Bishop Forster to Archbishop Justin. I suppose this is all academic now.
Surely of greater relevance than the suspension of Martyn Percy who was in priestly orders was the suspension of Christopher Lowson was was in episcopal orders? With the support of two senior diocesans Justin Welby suspended the Bishop of Lincoln from ministering for a considerable period of time. As far as I can recall no detailed reason was ever given for suspending him?
Bishop B in the examples in my reply to Charles Read above. It was a case of an historical ‘oversight’ in safeguarding practice – no personal impropriety by the bishop was alleged. After a very lengthy period he was belatedly told the details of the allegation, apologised and after a short period, retired. At the time of the suspension there was much discussion here on TA whether it was lawful. The procedure I described above is, however, the correct one for suspension of a bishop in the context of a CDM.
As an afterthought, even the case of Bishop A exposed a lacuna in the C of E CDM drafting. Bishop A was one of the two senior diocesans who, in theory, had to endorse any suspension. One assumes that the third most senior bishop must have stepped in, but there is (or was) no provision for this to happen in the CDM as enacted (which has the same force as statute). I’m not up to date on the revisions to the CDM: it will be interesting to see whether these points have been taken on board.
Just to clarify: Bishop Forster was never suspended, so the lacuna you refer to (the prospect of Dr Forster, as the senior bishop in the northern province being asked to endorse his own suspension) was not exposed. Archbishop John Sentamu took advice from the Vicar-General (i.e. His Honour Peter Collier QC) and determined that because there was no perceived risk, Forster could not be suspended: see IICSA transcript 10 July 2019, page 158). Sentamu was asked by Fiona Scolding QC about the different conclusion reached by ++Justin in the Lincoln case and he replied: “Well, had I the same facts… Read more »
Rowland, just to emphasise for the sake of clarity and accuracy that the ‘oversight’ in safeguarding practice for which Bishop Lowson apologised did not relate to the matters being investigated by Lincolnshire police and in respect of which he was suspended (unlawfully, in my view) by ++Justin. Those matters, which became the subject of a CDM complaint by Ms Caslake, were dismissed by the President on 21 December 2020, Dame Sarah finding ‘no case to answer.’ The entirely separate allegation that Bishop Lowson admitted and which led to the rebuke was that “on the 13 March 2019, having been the… Read more »
Yes thanks – that is a better parallel.
With respect, my first reply to you made precisely this point!
With respect, my first reply to you made precisely this point!
Yes, that’s what I was saying thanks for!
Sorry, Charles, obviously wires crossed at this end! See also David Lamming’s contributions about what factually happened. Nevertheless the procedure is as I stated.
Bishop Lowson’s suspension by Archbishop Justin was pursuant to section 37(1)(e) of the CDM on the basis of information provided by Lincolnshire Police. See my comment above replying to Rowland Wateridge and the paper I wrote at the time, referenced above.
David, you may recall that I first raised the issue on TA, and your learned paper followed! At the time others (still regular contributors) strongly disagreed with us and there was much discussion of suspension being ‘a neutral act’ within the Archbishop’s unfettered powers! I’m not sure that I (or you) persuaded them at the time that the rules of statutory interpretation applied to the CDM!
Rowland
Just to say that no CDM complaint leads to ‘instant suspension’, and suspension is used in a tiny minority of cases. Legally the bishop can suspend a clergyperson only on one of two grounds: firstly, that the secular authorities (police or social services) advise it because they believe the person poses such a risk, and secondly, that the Registrar advises it on the grounds of risk after they have produced their preliminary scrutiny of the complaint. It is far from automatic. In my years of supporting clergy subject to such complaints I have only ever known one to have been… Read more »
I do not have any personal knowledge of the rights and wrongs of the situation in the Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney – but I do feel that prima facie, this letter, which was published in the Church Times in September last year must call into question the adequacy of the Torrance report, and I find it slightly strange that it has not been more widely referred to. Torrance review of diocese of Aberdeen & Orkney From Professor Brian Brock Sir, — An ugly dispute about the leadership of Bishop Dyer is currently roiling the Scottish Episcopal Church (News, Letters, 17 September). Events… Read more »
A bishop should be a focus of unity. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, or whose fault it is, a bishop who is not a focus of unity should go.
But surely a focus only on unity gives a power of veto to any group ruthless enough to threaten to walk away, no matter how valid the content of their demands.
Why would anybody make themselves hostage to such groups?
I think you’re a little naïve. Forward in Faith clergy and congregations have their own focus of unity bishops as do the conservative evangelicals. A happy clappy bishop does not always go down well with catholic clergy and congregations and vice versa. The best bishops are those who don’t try to be all things to all people.
I am both happy, and I clap – does that make me a conservative evangelical, or define me ecclesiologically? Please stop using these naïve, pejorative and dated disparaging phrases.
The attempt by bishops to be “the focus of unity” is a mistake on their part. Christ is our focus of unity. Bishops are called to be shepherds of their flocks, and that will mean exercising discipline over under-shepherds. This may make the bishop unpopular.