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.
“….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 »
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 »
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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 »
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 »