| ECCLESIASTICAL LAW — Clergyman — Misconduct — Tribunal finding of “conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the work of clerk in holy orders” — Imposing penalty on clergyman of four year prohibition from exercising any functions of his orders – Clergyman appealing against penalty — Whether conduct falling short of adultery to attract same penalty as for adultery — Whether personal difficulties resulting from penalty to be taken into account — Whether credit to be given for length of time priest suspended from duties pending tribunal determination — Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (2003 No 3), s 24(1)(b) s 36
In re King; [2008] WLR (D) 137
Chancery Ct of York: Sheila Cameron QC, auditor, Reverend Canon David Felix, Reverend Canon Janet Eastwood, Marlene Armitage, Colin Slater: 24 April 2008
In respect of penalties set according to s 24(1)(b) of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 conduct falling short of adultery did not automatically attract a lesser penalty than would have been imposed for adultery. Personal difficulties resulting from the imposition of a penalty were not a test as to what was the appropriate penalty since the reputation of the profession was more important than the fortunes of any individual member.
The Chancery Court of York: Sheila Cameron QC, auditor, Reverend Canon David Felix, Reverend Canon Janet Eastwood, Marlene Armitage and Colin Slater, so held in a combined judgment, when dismissing the appeal by the respondent, Reverend David Charles King against a penalty set according to s 24(1)(b) of the 2003 Measure of a four year prohibition from exercising any of the functions of his orders, commencing at the date of judgment. The penalty had been imposed by the Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal for the Diocese of York in its written decision of 23 November 2007 whereby it found the respondent guilty of conduct “unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk of holy orders in that since about 2001 he had had an intimate and unprofessional relationship with [a named woman] at a time when she was married”. The respondent appealed under s 20 of the 2003 Measure on the grounds, inter alia, first that the penalty was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances and in particular (a) it should have been less than it would have been for adultery since the tribunal made no finding of adultery; (b) the effect of the prohibition would be to take the respondent to the age of 60 thus defeating the prospect that in the future he could resume normal duties of ministry. Second that the tribunal failed to give sufficient credit for the time the respondent had been suspended pursuant to s 36 of the 2003 Measure pending the determination of the tribunal.
THE COURT said that first it did not follow that conduct falling short of adultery should automatically attract a lesser penalty than adultery. Furthermore that “clergy were called to a high standard of moral behaviour” and that “the reputation of the church in the community depends to a great extent on the example of its clergy, who should recognise their role as public representatives of the church”: Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of Clergy 2003. These guidelines should have been kept readily available by the respondent to assist him in the administration of his duties. In addition the court had to mark the seriousness of a matter whatever the age of the person concerned. The reputation of the profession was more important than any personal difficulties which might arise from the imposition of a penalty although, depending on the circumstances, in particular the nature of the misconduct and the degree of repentance, the age of the respondent might be a material factor (for example youth and inexperience) in arriving at an appropriate remedy. Repentance and remorse were basic Christian tenets and due credit should always be given by a tribunal and an appellate court to genuine expressions of repentance and remorse. Finally the period of suspension from duties pending trial should not be taken into account when a disciplinary tribunal was determining the appropriate penalty. In the circumstances and given that the respondent had showed no repentance or remorse, the tribunal had not erred in its findings as to the seriousness of the misconduct and the penalty it had imposed was not excessive and would run from the date of the tribunal’s written judgment.
|
