Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T10:38:17.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Archdeacon of Colchester v Gair

Disciplinary Tribunal, Diocese of Chelmsford, November 2008 Adultery – impartiality of tribunal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2009

Ruth Arlow
Affiliation:
Barrister, Deputy Chancellor of the Dioceses of Chichester and Norwich
Will Adam
Affiliation:
Rector of Girton, Ely Diocesan Ecumenical Officer
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Case Notes
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2009

The Archdeacon brought a complaint that the respondent, the Rector of Debden with Wimbish and Thunderly, had conducted an inappropriate affair with a parishioner, Mrs X, whose husband had turned to him for support when the marriage was in difficulty. The tribunal found, on the balance of probability, that the relationship was of a sexual nature and therefore conduct unbecoming. He was prohibited from the exercise of the functions of his order for seven years from the date of the determination. There were several preliminary rulings in this case. The respondent sought to ensure that both clerical members of the tribunal be male and that one be a member of the Society of the Holy Cross, a clerical society in the catholic tradition in the Church of England. He alleged that the substance of the case in its initial stages rested on his opposition to the ordination of women to the priesthood. He raised the question of whether the complaint against him was a pretext for removing him from office because of his views on women priests and suggested that a woman priest could not be sufficiently impartial towards him. The President of Tribunals rejected this application. The tribunal noted that the complaint was not about the respondent's views on the ordination of women and that it was not open to him to challenge the validity of the appointment of a woman priest to the tribunal. It was incumbent on the tribunal, however, by reason of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to consider any lack of impartiality levelled against it. The tribunal did so and unanimously found that there was no violation. The respondent did not attend the hearing and the tribunal proceeded in his absence. The complaint having been proved, a seven-year prohibition was imposed. [WA]

A transcript of the tribunal's determination may be found at http://www.ecclaw.co.uk/clergydiscipline/gair1.pdf and of the imposition of penalty at http://www.ecclaw.co.uk/clergydiscipline/gair2.pdf