No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 December 2013
The Clergy Discipline Measure has been in force since 1 January 2006. The Measure provides a structure for dealing with formal complaints of misconduct against members of the clergy except in relation to matters involving doctrine, ritual or ceremonial, which continue to be governed by the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963. This article looks at how the Measure has worked in practice, and considers amendments to the Measure that have recently been made.
2 Proceedings under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure against a priest or deacon could be brought by an individual complainant only if authorised to do so by the bishop (except in the case of a stipendiary curate licensed to a benefice, in which case the incumbent of that benefice could also bring proceedings). Otherwise, proceedings could only be instituted against a priest or deacon if brought jointly by at least six persons of full age, all of whom had to be on the electoral roll.
3 See, for example, paras 8 and 9 of the Code of Practice issued by the Clergy Discipline Commission, and an explanatory leaflet produced by the Commission for complainants, entitled ‘I have a complaint about misconduct by a member of the clergy – what can I do?’, available at <http://www.churchofengland.org/media/51329/makingcomplaintA4.rtf>, accessed 12 September 2013.
4 Code of Practice, para 34.
5 Ibid, para 15.
6 Ibid, para 137.
7 Ibid, para 139.
8 Requests for funding should be addressed to the Deputy Official Solicitor at Church House, Westminster.
9 Code of Practice, para 171, states: ‘Removal from office or prohibition will not automatically result from a decree absolute of divorce or decree of judicial separation involving adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion. Most decrees absolute and decrees of judicial separation are granted as a result of uncontested proceedings on paper so that the evidence in support of the petition is not questioned or tested, although it is accepted by the court. Furthermore, some respondents, recognising that their marriage has broken down irretrievably and could be dissolved against their will in any event after a period of 5 years separation, may choose not to contest allegations in a divorce petition, even if not accepted – this avoids legal expense and argument over sensitive and personal issues. The bishop should bear this in mind as a factor when considering what disciplinary action to take.’
10 Ibid, para 217.
11 Ibid, para 221.
13 Section 25 of the CDM enables a tribunal, upon a finding that the respondent has committed misconduct, to impose a conditional discharge where it is inexpedient to impose a penalty having regard to the circumstances, including the nature of the misconduct and the character of the respondent.
14 Available at <http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1474847/penalty%20guidance%20revd%20april%2012.pdf>, accessed 12 September 2013.
15 See <http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/clergydiscipline/directions.aspx>, accessed 12 September 2013.
16 Under rule 103, where there has been an irregularity or error of procedure, the President, the Registrar, the Chair or the tribunal may give directions to cure or waive the irregularity.
17 Under rule 30, directions may be given with or without a hearing by the Registrar or the Chair at any stage for the just disposal of the proceedings in accordance with the overriding objective.
18 See <http://www.churchofengland.org/media/39695/gs1747b.pdf> (accessed 12 September 2013).
19 The maker of a witness statement in support of the respondent's Answer will also be able to request – with reasons – that his or her contact details should be withheld, in this case from the complainant. If the diocesan registrar, notwithstanding the request, directs that the witness's contact details should be disclosed to the complainant, the witness statement will continue to be used in the proceedings, in contrast to the position concerning witness statements that support a complaint. The Rule Committee made the distinction because it would not be in the interests of justice if a witness statement in support of an answer were to be withdrawn. A complainant generally has an option to withdraw from complaint proceedings and might choose to do so if a witness does not wish his or her contact details to be disclosed to the respondent; a respondent, however, has no similar option to withdraw from complaint proceedings.