Updated 25 November
Clergy Discipline Measure – Penalty
The following is a record of a penalty imposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury with the consent of the respondent bishop under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003:
Name: The Right Reverend Peter Hullah
Penalty: Prohibition for life
Date Imposed: 1st August 2022
Brief Summary: Sexual misconduct involving two different women on two separate occasions.
———
This story has been reported in the Mail, and Times, and Telegraph so far. And now also the Church Times (scroll down).
The two offences occurred (according to the Mail) in 1985 and 1999. Peter Hullah was Bishop of Ramsbury (suffragan in Salisbury) from 1999 to 2005. From 1992, he was headmaster of Chetham’s School in Manchester, where there were multiple complaints of sexual misbehaviour by staff, but not by Hullah.
The new complaint, regarding these offences, was dealt with in the Province of Canterbury, during the summer of this year, but was not made public at that time.
The Telegraph reports
A spokesman for Mr Hullah said he had agreed to the sanction in August instead of contesting the allegations before a Church tribunal.
And:
A Church of England spokesman said: “We can confirm that Peter Hullah has now been prohibited from ministry for life following a complaint under the clergy discipline measure brought by the national safeguarding team.
“We would like to acknowledge the courage and offer an unreserved apology on behalf of the Church to those who came forward to share their experience; support has been offered to all involved.
“The Church expects the highest standards from those in leadership and there can be no excuses when this does not happen.
“We will continue to listen to all those who come forward and to work together to make the Church a safer place for all.”
It. is very disappointing that this decision was not published at the time, as the relevant procedures were amended only this July at the General Synod, to ensure this would happen. However, even before this change, the procedure said
“Where a penalty by consent has been agreed with a bishop brief particulars of the misconduct should be made public by a notice placed on the diocese’s website.”
GS 2281X (dated May) contains the following:
Publishing Penalties
9. All penalties imposed under the CDM are made public. Penalties imposed by a tribunal are published on the Church of England tribunal webpage, administered by the NCIs.
10.The current guidance provides that where the respondent admits misconduct and the bishop imposes a penalty by consent brief details of the case should be placed on the diocesan website. Further, it states that penalties imposed other than by a tribunal – i.e. under sections 30 and 31 CDM 2003 – should be made public.
11.To ensure a consistent approach to the publishing of penalties the proposed amendments to paragraph 312 provide that publishing penalties by consent and penalties imposed under sections 30 and 31 will no longer be the responsibility of the diocese or province. Upon a penalty being agreed the diocesan or provincial registrar will send the relevant details to the President of the Tribunals, who will cause them to be published on the Church of England website. The name of the respondent, the date penalty was agreed or imposed and the statutory ground of misconduct (e.g. “doing an act in contravention of the laws ecclesiastical”, “neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of his office”, “conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders”) -but not any details of the particular misconduct – will be published.
12.Paragraph 311 is deleted as being no longer being necessary consequential upon the amendments to paragraph 312.
Further update
The Church Times reports this explanation of the delay (emphasis added):
On Thursday, a notice of the sanction was posted on the website of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In July, the General Synod voted to amend the CDM Code of Practice to require that “brief particulars” of a penalty against a bishop that is agreed by consent are posted “on the Church of England website” (News, 15 July).
Before this, only penalties by consent against a lower-ranked cleric were required to be published, not sanctions agreed between a bishop and an archbishop.
Because the case against Bishop Hullah was settled after the Synod had voted to amend the Code of Practice but before the Clergy Discipline Commission rubber-stamped the changes, it was unclear whether, when, and where, the notice had to be posted.
A few comments: To be accurate, it was not alleged that Bishop Hullah was himself guilty of any sexual misconduct; rather, his ‘offence’ was to cover up offences by staff at Chetham’s Music School in Manchester when he was the head teacher from 1992 to 1999, in particular by, as recorded on Wikipedia, “announcing that Brewer had taken early retirement on the grounds of ill health, in order to preserve the reputation of the school and the perpetrator.” Brewer was the Director of Music at Chetham’s for 20 years from 1974; in February 2013 he was convicted of indecently assaulting… Read more »
I have amended the heading to remove the word “suspended”. Thanks for the correction.
There is now a report on the Church Times website, which significantly includes information contained in many of the comments about the case already made on this blog:
Peter Hullah, former Bishop of Ramsbury, is prohibited for life (churchtimes.co.uk)
I have copied into the original article (scroll to end) that portion of the Church Times report which contains an “explanation” of the delay. One supposes that this is a quotation from some church official. It is worse than pathetic.
Am I being dense because I am struggling to see the timeline here, specifically when did the two women make complaints and when were they referred to the police? There’s a big difference between an historic matter which was raised recently and promptly addressed and something which has festered internally for many years.
I agree, and the reporting has been far from clear. As to sexual misconduct, the Mail is clear in its report stating that the former bishop “has been banned from the Church of England for life after admitting sexual misconduct.” That clearly has no connection with the separate matters at Chetham’s School in relation to an event in 1985, and it equally predates his being the Bishop of Ramsbury. The Mail reports the second date as 1999 (not 1989) so clearly that difference is crucial and the correct date needs to be established. It seems to me that the Mail… Read more »
I am sorry for the mistyping, the Mail does indeed place the second offence in 1999. I have corrected the article.
‘alleged’ offence since it appears that Hullah hasn’t been found guilty of an offence.
Effectively there has been a guilty plea and acceptance of the penalty for the offence as charged. Noteworthy that the penalty was imposed on 1st August and formally announced on 24th November. There may be some good reason for this, but it seems remarkable that the Mail announced it first, and both the Times and the Telegraph appear to have based their articles on the Mail’s.
That time lag between the imposition of the penalty and the formal announcement seems typical of the way that the Church of England releases this information. Why is it so different from courts in England? Eg this week a well known footballer’s trial has been set for November 2023. He has already been suspended for months. The world and his wife can read all the allegations. The opposite of the Church which still does its processes in secret.
Mail reporting isn’t renowned for its clarity and it’s very unclear what has led to Hullah’s suspension. That highlights the problem though: we shouldn’t have to rely on Mail reporting; there should be a clear press release from the Church of England.
https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/news/news-and-statements/clergy-discipline-measure-penalty
Kate, there hasn’t been a press release but this morning’s Church of England Media Digest (25 November) provides a link ‘Clergy Discipline Measure – Penalty’ to the following details published on 24/11/2022 on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s website: “The following is a record of a penalty imposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury with the consent of the respondent bishop under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003: Name: The Right Reverend Peter Hullah Penalty: Prohibition for life Date Imposed: 1st August 2022 Brief Summary: Sexual misconduct involving two different women on two separate occasions.” These minimal details don’t enlarge on the information… Read more »
I have linked to this notice at the top of the original article.
‘10.The current guidance provides that where the respondent admits misconduct and the bishop imposes a penalty by consent brief details of the case should be placed on the diocesan website. Further, it states that penalties imposed other than by a tribunal – i.e. under sections 30 and 31 CDM 2003 – should be made public’ Is this different when the respondent admits misconduct but doesn’t agree to the penalty. At what point should a diocese make a public statement that a respondent has admitted misconduct, has refused the penalty, and the case is going to Tribunal. At what point should… Read more »
Michael, to answer your questions: 1. Section 16 of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 deals with the ‘penalty by consent’ procedure. There can only be such a penalty where the respondent admits misconduct. Subsections (1) to (3) provide: (1) “Where the bishop considers that the imposition of a penalty by consent might be appropriate, he shall afford the complainant and the respondent an opportunity to make representations and, if the respondent consents to the imposition of a penalty under this section and he and the bishop agree as to the penalty, the bishop shall, subject to subsection (2) below, proceed… Read more »
I have some personal knowledge of the Chet’s affair, and specifically the Brewers, both before and after the full scale of the offences became known. I do not want to be specific, but I was not in the slightest bit surprised by the allegations and subsequent convictions. David Lamming, below, helpfully linked to Hullah’s testimony to the IICAS. Clearly, given subsequent revelations, we should read it through the filter of his not necessarily being either a reliable or even honestly mistaken witness to events. However, we should recognise the utter safeguarding shambles of residential schools at the time, both day… Read more »
I think prohibiting someone from the exercise of ordained ministry is not the same thing as complete laicisation, for it simply means a person is prohibited from exercising ministry within the Church, yet he or she is still technically a Bishop or a Priest, whereas a Laicisation is much clearer, the person concerned is formally returned to Lay Status, and can no longer use clerical or Episcopal titles or in any way present themselves as an ordained Minister, it makes it abundantly clear they are no longer an ordained Minister in any sense of the word. It would be better… Read more »
Deposition from Holy Orders is not currently available under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003. However, as the paper GS 2277 (‘Under Authority Revisited: Report from Clergy Conduct Measure Implementation Group), presented to General Synod in York in July, records at para 9.23, “In 2020 the Church gave a commitment to IICSA to re-introduce the availability of deposition from Holy Orders for those who commit the most serious offences“, and this is shown as a proposed possible penalty for Serious Misconduct’ in the table on page 24 of the report, with the explanation that this is “An order having the same… Read more »
/continued Q. They said that Mr Brewer had sent their daughter cards;2 is that right?3 A. Yes, and it was difficult to actually get to the bottom4 of that, because they could have been cards relating to5 musical success or progress, because cards were moving6 around like that. When I asked the question about what7 was the nature of these cards, I got no reply and never8 saw any of them.9 Q. Did you ask for them?10 A. I did ask for them, yes.11 Q. What did RS-A187’s parents want to be done about the12 situation?13 A. They were concerned that RS-A187’s development was not14 impeded. They weren’t unduly concerned by time spent15 with… Read more »
Sadly, you make very good points. I’d also add: the invidious nature of NDA’s. In situations where abusive behaviour has come to the surface at a private school, the trustees/governors/senior managers sometimes opted for a dismissal settlement, coupled with Non-Disclosure conditions on all parties. This happened at a school where I taught back then. The dismissed teacher had already been behaving inappropriately at a previous school, but this was not mentioned in the references to teach at my school, which then took him on, only for the bad conduct to recur. But instead of flagging up the conduct, the school… Read more »
One presumes the Church announcement was only made after it appeared in the newspapers.
Would it have appeared at all if the press hadn’t reported it? It would seem someone was frustrated at the church lack of issuing the case and went to the press.
Dave I also wondered if someone went to the press. I know of a case where conduct unbecoming was established several months ago. Even though the respondent admitted the offences, the proposed penalty was rejected. This means a tribunal. I’m told that the respondent hasn’t been suspended. I’ve checked the diocesan website today and there’s no public statement about the case. The complainant is worried about going to the press because of the risk of being outed.
I think it’s pretty obvious that ‘someone’ went to the press: the ‘Mail’ article quotes dates and other detail which would only be known to those involved.
I am more than open to correction, but understand the CDM process to be a parallel to a disciplinary process in a conventional workplace (as against a prosecution in the courts). If that is correct, then making public the fact of a complaint about an employee (or giving the reason for a suspension) leaves the employer open to action by the employee – in the secular world I have known exactly that position. What is different is that the CDM regulations mandate some occasions when the penalty should be made public – a significant difference from the secular disciplinary process… Read more »
I am so tired of the excuses. Oh it’s because it was a bishop, or the senior bishop in a province, or the rules didn’t require it at the time, or we didn’t foresee this eventuality, or it’s at the discretion of someone or other, or when an archbishop is involved alternative procedures apply, or it’s only guidance and not required, or it’s not been approved by synod, or it’s up to the individual dioceses. I’ll tell you what it all looks like to me: a culture in which nothing adverse is disclosed unless it is forced out, or the… Read more »
I absolutely agree but for me even more concerning is the lack of transparency as to when the two women came forward. How can anyone have confidence that allegations are dealt with swiftly if that key fact is withheld?
We are told that the NST investigated and initiated the CDM procedure which in a case involving a bishop (in office or retired) automatically goes to the Archbishop. My understanding is that thus far, and the CDM itself, are totally confidential and that it is the result of the CDM which must be published; agreed only the bare bones are given and it seems that the announcement of the penalty by consent in this case was in correct form although more than three months overdue in publication. I think an important factor in this case is that Kent Police investigated… Read more »