Desmond Tutu : If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.
I hope that most of my readers can hold to the belief that, even when they do not agree with my ideas and perspectives, I always attempt to be fair-minded. This expression means that I try to look at the perspective of anyone who takes an opposing point of view to mine. There are, of course, some situations and causes about which I cannot even pretend to be even-handed. I mention, for example, the political and religious utterances of ex-President Trump. My words on that subject will, no doubt, drip with strongly disapproving comment, alongside a bafflement that so many Americans are caught up in a cult around this man. Somehow, they have allowed themselves to see Trump, even now, as some kind of answer to their country’s problems.
There is another topical issue in the Church where I find it impossible, even in my imagination, to be sympathetic to one side of an argument. The topic I am thinking of is the cruel persecution of Martyn Percy. I have for a long time been supportive of Percy at Christ Church. I must admit that part of my bias in favour of his cause, has been based on ties of old friendship which go back some thirty years. Over the past couple of years, when his story has been a topic for consideration by this blog, I have been wondering if anyone will come along with tangible evidence of serious misconduct. Is there some hidden story that would justify the extraordinary harassment he has had to endure? There have been hints and rumours put about by his opponents that he is some kind of sex pest. Others suggest that there is a further narrative that has not yet been revealed. I am reminded, in these hints, of the defenders of Trump who keep promising to deliver decisive evidence that the American 2020 election was rigged. The protestations of Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and others never translate into hard evidence. We are left to conclude that all such protestations are rhetorical devices. The evidence never exists in reality but the effect of uttering such claims is sufficient to sow uncertainty in the minds of hearers. We can suggest that something similar is happening when members of the Cathedral congregation are assured of the wickedness of their Dean, even though the evidence and nature of his felonies are never shared or revealed.
As part of my concern for this case, I have scrutinised the Internet looking for any people outside the Christ Church network who have been convinced of Percy’s guilt. Is there, in other words, anyone in Oxford who, having heard the claims of the Sub-Dean, the Chaplain, Canon Graham Ward and other Ch Ch malcontents, genuinely believes these suggestions of serious misconduct to be true? Does anyone really believe that the strictures of the inhibition which severely checks Percy’s movements around the college are a necessary safeguarding tool? Even those individuals who dislike Percy because of his past stand in the Philip North/Sheffield affair, do not claim that what he did or did not do then justifies the present bullying and institutional violence.
When a well-informed but anonymous voice appeared in my blog comments section, appearing to support the opponents of Percy, I took an immediate interest, thinking that these arguments might take the discussion to a new level. An initial problem for my task of editing, was the absence of a name and a strongly abrasive tone taken against other commentators. These comments also suggested a high degree of access to inside College information. I suggested to the anonymous person that aggressive comments could only be tolerated, if they were accompanied with a name. The individual withdrew speedily, and so I knew that the comments and arguments were not sufficiently rooted in an unbiassed attempt to establish truth, to stand this kind of exposure. The individual turned out to be a close personal friend of one of the key Christ Church plotters. Thus the suggestion that the contributions were neutral were shown to be false.
I mention this anecdote to indicate that genuine neutrality in the Percy affair is probably impossible to find. The reason for this is perhaps to be found in the quote from Desmond Tutu at the start. On the one side there are a group of malcontent dons who have persuaded themselves of a series of claims about their Dean which seem to have absolutely no basis in fact. Obviously, we have to suggest reasons for such loathing. Here we must rely on surmise and speculation. The real reasons lie somewhere in the murky hinterland when professional jealousies, snobbery and sheer academic vindictiveness take root and flourish. Were I to interview one known enemy of the Dean, the one who leaked appalling salacious material about him to the Daily Mail, I would find myself dealing with a mind that seems to be sick, obsessed and packed tight with resentment. The story that was then told has never been confirmed and certainly the account was never followed up anywhere by other evidence or testimony. It all seemed to start and finish inside the pornographic imagination of one solitary individual. He was bent on the purpose of removing the Dean, even if it meant lying with all the resources of his imagination.
The stance I have been taking in the Percy affair has been fully, I believe, vindicated by the writing and legal brilliance of Martin Sewell. He has been setting out clearly the legal aspects of the Percy’s case over on Archbishop Cranmer’s blog. https://archbishopcranmer.com/institutional-bullying-in-the-church-of-england/ He presents in a forensic way an outline of all the evidence that has been mounted against Percy over several years. One by one, we see how the legal arguments of his persecutors were demolished by senior independent legal examiners who came to adjudicate on the various claims against Percy. Every time an individual with the status of a High Court judge examined the evidence, the case against Percy evaporated. Please read this decisive document. I defy anyone who reads Sewell’s article as a neutral person to remain in any doubt that that Percy is an innocent party and deserving of support from his colleagues and overseers. The essay is especially critical of the Bishop of Oxford. He had every opportunity to establish what was going on at the beginning of the process. He chose rather to align himself with the accusers that we may describe as a mob. These are they who seek to undermine the Dean by every means possible. If any of my readers believes themselves to be among the likely extinct band of neutral observers of the case, please write to me and explain how they remain unconvinced by Sewell’s arguments.
I am writing this piece in the shadow of a forthcoming General Synod. Martin Sewell is a well-known defender of the victims of power games of all kinds in the Church, from the falsely accused to victims of sexual violence. His essay is compelling and powerful. Please, Synod members, if any of you read this, listen to him if he has the chance to speak, and remember that the failure of justice in the Church is like a cancer that will possibly destroy the whole institution if it is not checked and brought under control. If Martyn Percy is defeated by the malicious lying behaviour on the part of some senior clergy and dons, what hope have the rest of us of presenting ourselves to the world as people of integrity and honesty?
In a dichotomous debate, it never ceases to amaze me how little each side moves from its position.
Even words as erudite and persuasive as Martin Sewell’s seem to fall on deaf ears. Of course those who already accept them are further convinced.
The other side appears to be locked into its own private world of privilege and power, narcissistically oblivious to the world outside. Little anonymous skirmishes into the thought stream of the rest of the world, seem to be rare exceptions to this cloistering.
It would be valuable to have reasonable disagreement to this view.
In 1786 workmen opened a tomb in the Burgundian village of Saulieu. In doing so they unwittingly released into the air bacteria which very quickly killed the parish priest, 200 bystanders and 40 children. There have been other instances of this happening when old tombs have been opened.
The Percy affair was originally a dispute about pay and rations which has got radically out of hand, and it has released into the atmosphere of Christ Church and beyond toxins, representing centuries of accumulated resentments between students and canons (for all that some of the canons are Dr Percy’s adversaries) and a wealth of personal resentments. These toxins have struck everyone in their path.
I am, if you will forgive me, neutral in that I do not have a view about the original dispute, which has long been lost in a blizzard of invective and litigation. I have no doubt that Dr Percy has been treated disgracefully, if not monstrously, and that the Church has been tarnished very seriously by deliberately and opportunistically allowing itself to be ‘played’, so it would seem from Mr Sewell’s researches. The bishop of Oxford emerges from this with his reputation ostensibly sullied still further.
But I also know that Dr Percy cannot credibly serve as dean once this dispute has been resolved (*if* it is resolved). It is simply not plausible for him to remain anything other than an effective prisoner in his deanery even if he is vindicated in law and in the court of public opinion. It is also unreasonable to expect that the other canons and the students will resign en masse and that he will stay: the implications of that outcome are that the college would break apart (as some erstwhile students fear).
So I think he has to ‘win’. I think that he has to obtain a favourable settlement, and then I think he should go, having received the vindication that so many believe he deserves.
The wreckage of the 1867 constitution of the college, left by this scandal, will then need to be cast aside, and something new will have to be put in its place.
Thank you for this piece Froghole. To look forward and mark such changes is the hefty job of leadership.
Your second proposal: ‘The wreckage of the 1867 constitution of the college, left by this scandal, will then need to be cast aside, and something new will have to be put in its place.’ This sounds unprecedented, but necessary.
I wonder if this, in a small local example, is emblematic of what needs to happen in the Church of England as a whole? Constitutional death and reformation.
Regarding Dean Percy ‘winning’ and standing down (with settlement), I wonder how likely/feasible this is. Perhaps the counsel so generously employed by the College, will come to a similar conclusion and advise their client accordingly. Perhaps they already did.
Many years ago, an ancestor of mine, a Quaker who interrupted an Anglican service, was committed by the priest to the stocks for three hours; she was then taken before a magistrate who said there was no case to answer. Her protagonists then took her before another magistrate who sentenced her to Bedford assizes where she had to wait for several months in prison, among the thieves, murderers, bankrupts and prostitutes (not that she negated them as fellow-sufferers) for an adjudication by the Peripatetic Judges of those times.
It does not seem that systems within the Church of England or Christ Church College and its Cathedral have changed much since those times of oppression.
Apart from the double jeopardy of my ancestor’s case, it seems to me that there are certain similarities – principles of natural justice that are being ignored in the way that the Diocese, the Bishop, Christ Church College and their lawyers are continuing to oppress the Dean.
It is public knowledge that a new tribunal is in the process of being set up by the College, to enquire into the denied ‘hair stroking’ incident, which has been adjudicated upon by Dame Sarah Asplin, with the result that the Church’s own CDM process has ceased. She described it, we are told, as disproportionate for the matter to go to tribunal. It is believed that the tribunal to be set up by the College would consist of three people, a judge or barrister, a member of the College Governing Body and a member of the Cathedral Chapter.
This seems to fly in the face of Dame Sarah’s adjudication; it also defies the maxim that has been a cornerstone of British justice and originated in Roman law that no man should be a judge in his own cause. And it was Lord Goff of Chievely who quoted Lord Campbell in an earlier case: ‘the principle is not confined to a cause to which the judge is a party, but applies also to a cause in which he has an interest’. And who would be the paymasters of those tribunal members?
And of course, there is another maxim, quoted in a judgement by Lord Hewart – ‘justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done’. And it is neither being done, and surely cannot be seen to be being done in the case of Dean Percy.
Perhaps the lawyers among you can unpick this, and explain how this can be justified…
This has been discussed here previously, and on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ many times, but see below for further expert elucidation from Froghole.
A while back as a comparison I quoted the equivalent provisions in the Statutes of King’s College, Cambridge for removal of the Provost from office – in that case, for good cause. The Provost’s role is equivalent except, of course, that he or she is not a cathedral dean and does not have to be in Orders, although can be. The significant difference, and it goes to the root of the issue of justice which you mention, is the composition of the tribunal at KCC: a chairman holding or having held high judicial office or a senior lawyer, plus two other persons. None of the three may be a Fellow or employee of KCC, and thus wholly independent.
As has been pointed out, at Christ Church the chairman is independent but the other members of the tribunal are respectively members of the Governing Body and the Cathedral Chapter, and they can potentially outvote the chairman.
Thanks Rowland
That is most informative; as you say, it has been said before (to some extent).
But which has precedence – natural justice as evidenced (also, to some extent) since Roman times, and quoted recently by their Lordships as cornerstones of our legal systems, or the dubious arrangements set up under some statute by an archaic, self-interested body, and its co-conspirators, whose nature appears to have changed from a spirit of Christian humility, openess and kindness, to one of conspiracy, vindictiveness and opression when faced with the realities of today and the matter of the Dean?
Does the make-up of such a tribunal with a potential majority decision by those with ‘a cause in which he has an interest’ have precedence over such long held natural justice?
I hope not – and as we have seen in the cases involving their Lordships to which I have referred, their could follow Questions in the two Houses, or Judicial Review, could there not? Otherwise, this may be the stuff of revolution, and palace walls may crumble.
Let us all see sense, proportionality, recompense and reconcilliation, if still possible.
Thank you Stephen, for pointing out again that allowing injustice to continue, is akin to participation if you are in a position or have the authority to speak up against it. Particularly in a case such as this where the victim of injustice has suffered so greatly that it has become impossible to make amends, even if the injustice stops today and every possible restitution is made.The enormity of the suffering Dean Percy has undergone is so great I can only think of one word to describe his opponents and that word is wicked. A wicked Christian? I really do not understand how such people feel able to mistreat the Dean when their behaviour has become public knowledge. I would like to bring out a point Martin Sewell makes because it relates to my case as well as many others who have complained. I am referring to the institutional abuse when those who normally receive the complaint are part of the problem. To date the answer one receives from national safeguarding is that they will refer your complaints back to the very people guilty of institutional abuse, that is your diocese. There is no attempt at all to ensure your complaint will be dealt with fairly and justly, even when you can show safeguarding failures with implications for the whole diocese. The past actions of my Bishop are being reviewed by Mr Makin. however there will be no review of the damning evidence in my case. So far the response of my diocese to a formal complaint that the CEO made a false police charges against me and wrote a false police statement which led to criminal proceedings is that he did so as a private citizen with the implication his gross misconduct has nothing to do with the diocese. I clearly remember being told in a police interview under caution that the charges had been made by the CEO on behalf of the Board of Finance. I then asked what action the diocese would take about his data breaches in providing as evidence for my trial emails I sent to national safeguarding, my pso, and a safeguarding consultant commissioned by the diocese. Apparently that is an internal matter and I have no right to know if any action is being taken about it.
The C of E’s processes can be nightmarish for those caught up in them. The glaring injustices in cases like yours don’t seem to occur to its episcopal leaders and chief civil servants. Or, if they do realise, they seem unmotivated or unable to do anything about it. I hope and pray, Mary, that you will find a just resolution.
Mary I agree that those who normally receive the complaint are part of the problem, that complaints are referred back to the very people guilty of institutional abuse, and no attempt at all to ensure a complaint will be dealt with fairly and justly. I’ve realised how naive I was to think an archdeacon would show any concern. I didn’t expect to be called disturbed and other choice insults.
As Janet wrote, I hope you can get the resolution which you are seeking.
The trouble is, you might be wounded by what they did. And then they punish you for it!
O h yes, my advice to anyone who has been bullied or abused in church circles is not to complain or at least be aware that your wounds will be made much worse if you do. The problem lies with church hierarchy who allow it to continue and those who turn a blind eye. The wounded should not be the ones drawing attention to the fact they will be kicked in the teeth if they make a complaint. And general synod members, with notable exceptions, do not challenge those in control. They prefer not to disturb the smooth running of the church in relation to cover ups.
I’m so sorry to hear how you were treated. I too, like most complainants was naive, You are not alone others have complained about extremely disturbing behaviour after complaining. The national church is fully aware but appears to be content with the situation. I hope you are now safe. The co.plaines procedures should come with a health warning. Dare to complain and we will punish you. Take care.
Many thanks. Yes – I think that’s right. I suspect that they have been on shaky legal ground from the outset, which is why their campaign has been so forceful (some might call it vicious). It might also explain why they have been engaging in what can only be described as a systematic campaign, in the hope that he will make some mistake or blunder (such as the hair-touching incident) which will give them a pretext for ejecting him.
The position of ‘the Church’ is interesting. I suspect that many in authority, at least at a diocesan level, are in sympathy with Dr Percy, though I imagine that after the Sheffield/North incident and repeated attacks on their authority, he has few friends on the bench, and some bishops may have seen the imbroglio as ‘payback’. However, the Church has more at stake within the wider University, where it still has a residuum of its former privileges (e.g., college chapels being a Church monopoly save in one or two cases); it does not want to offend the Christ Church dons too much lest it be seen as preferring its own kind over lay academics, thus provoking a further turn against the interests of the Church. So, in this instance the ends justify the means. In this sense the Church has made a political calculation: not necessarily to its moral credit, but a rational one withal.
This may also explain why at least two canons have been in the van of the campaign against Dr Percy. They have been, in one instance, and are in another, not without ambition for the deanery itself (so it has been alleged). Therefore, it is in their interests to dilute the antagonism between an overwhelmingly lay governing body and the chapter: it is not to their advantage that the deanery be severed from the headship of the college, or that the cathedral be removed elsewhere, for that would lessen the value of the prize that is to be had, if only Dr Percy will just move on, and quickly. Personally, I think they are wrong, and that the 1867 settlement (the Christ Church Oxford Act) has been wrecked so irretrievably, that the prize is no longer in their grasp, or indeed worth having. Other, perhaps more prudent, members of the chapter – recognising that it has long been impossible to exercise any form of effective or decent pastorate in such circumstances – have themselves moved on, one of them into parish ministry.
Sorry – that was a rely to Steve Lewis.
It’s important to state here, again, that Dean Percy denies ever having touched the woman’s hair.
Yes, many thanks! I should have written ‘the hair-touching allegations’.
Can anyone comment on the article in Private Eye No 1551 (9 July) p. 41 to the effect that the cathedral has effectively hijacked the Friends’ assets? I appreciate that these could only ever have been used to support the Cathedral, but if the report is true it does seem excessively heavy-handed.
Equally, can anyone (Froghole, perhaps?) explain the set-up at Christ Church where HM the Queen is both Visitor of ‘the House’ and of the Cathedral? Where does this leave the jurisdiction of the Bishop in the Cathedral? William Nye, on behalf of the Church of England, asserts that the CDM applies to clergy in ‘non-Royal peculiars’ as justification for the CDM against Dean Percy, thus putting Christ Church in that category. But with the Queen as Visitor, how can that be? It really does need explaining.
It seems to me that the bishop would *appear* to have no powers in Christ Church, whether as a college or cathedral, save unless they have been granted to him specifically by legislation, and it could be argued that this has happened by dint of the CDM.
The CDM replaces certain provisions of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (which exempts royal peculiars and does not count college chapels as benefices; remember that the Oxford University Act 1854 made Christ Church a college); the EJM arguably intruded the jurisdiction of the Church and, with it of the bishops, into the universities. Section 48 (3) of the CDM states that it applies to the whole of the provinces of Canterbury and York. This might explain why the governing body wished to use the CMD as a ramp to eject the dean.
Visitorial powers are now a relative nullity (save in the US, where they are still applied intermittently with respect to a number of corporations, within and without education), but they mattered very much before the nineteenth century, as an expression of political power and the intentions of the founders. As has been noted before, the crown is visitor of all royal foundations and its rights are exercised by the lord chancellor or by special commissioners, by proxy. It was also argued successfully in 1412 and 1637 that the crown and the archbishops have certain royal and metropolitical rights over the universities as a whole.
However, in 1434 the so-called Barnwell process was established under dispensation from Eugenius IV, which granted Cambridge university and its colleges and halls peculiar jurisdiction, exempt from that of Ely; this became a royal dispensation after the Act of Supremacy, and one which was claimed by subsequent collegiate foundations. Its application to Oxford or Dublin was uncertain, but Oxford also claimed peculiar status. Therefore, it could be argued that the universities/colleges were exempt from their bishops but not their archbishops.
Contd.
Contd.
The visitorial powers of the crown formed part of the massive dispute between Richard Bentley and the fellows of Trinity (1709-38), which makes Christ Church look like a cakewalk, and at times involved the wider university and an attempt to deprive Bentley of the regius chair of divinity and of his degrees (Bentley was a scholar of titanic reputation, and the litigation engendered by the dispute did nothing to diminish his output: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674058712). The ‘new’ statues of 1560 replaced the bishop of Ely as visitor, but did not name the visitor; by default, therefore, it was the crown, save that the 40th statute named the bishop with respect to the deprivation of the master. In 1711, the secretary of state (the famous philosopher, Henry St John, later Bolingbroke) referred the question to the law officers who stated that the bishop (the famous bibliophile, John Moore) had standing, but that Bentley could challenge that in court. A 6 week trial ensued, but before an outcome could be reached the bishop died and his successor, William Fleetwood, attempted to engineer a compromise. I mention this celebrated case because Trinity is: (a) Christ Church’s sister foundation; and (b) another foundation of Henry VIII, being a composite of King’s Hall and Michaelhouse (much as it could be argued that Christ Church was built on the foundations of Cardinal College and Canterbury College).
As mentioned, prior to 1854 Christ Church was a cathedral in toto, which just happened to have a teaching arm (the students), which had few rights as against the dean and canons. Section 41 of that statute states ‘For the purposes of this Act, the Cathedral or House of Christ Church in Oxford shall be considered to be to all Intents and Purposes a College of the University’. That’s all it says. Therefore, we should assume that the crown became visitor of Christ Church in its capacity as another college, and also remained visitor of the cathedral. The 1867 Act did not appear to tamper with that arrangement, although I have frankly struggled to find any text of the 1867 Act, and have had to rely on E. G. W. Bill and J. F. A. Mason’s ‘Christ Church and Reform, 1850-1867’ (1970).
What, then, is a royal peculiar? It is defined in Moore’s ‘Introduction to Canon Law’ (4th edn. 2013, at pp. 60-61). Christ Church is not mentioned. Nor was it covered in the ‘Report of the Review Group on the Royal Peculiars’ (2001: the review led by the Byzantinist, Dame Averil Cameron in the wake of the Jauncey judgment on the Neary case at Westminster, and a supplement to the Howe Commission). So, Christ Church is not regarded as a royal peculiar; it is instead, a peculiar of itself, subject to its legislative limitations.
The fact that an institution was founded by a monarch does not necessarily make it a royal peculiar, even if it is otherwise a peculiar. I think we can state that the list of royal peculiars is closed.
Thank you for that exhaustive and erudite reply. It leaves me baffled, however, that the Dean is subject to two distinct disciplinary codes with the possibility of contradictory outcomes on the same facts and seemingly no concept of double-jeopardy.
Many thanks. I wrote that we can consider the list of royal peculiars closed, but the customary list does not include (for example) St George’s, Kemp Town, in Brighton (https://sussexparishchurches.org/church/brighton-and-hove-st-george-st-georges-road-kemp-town/: this is John Allen’s excellent site, which has been restored after a major hack three years ago). When I attended a service there in 2011 I was informed that the diocese had attempted to close it, but that the parish was able to hit back with the clincher that, as it was a royal peculiar, the diocese had no standing in connection with it; the authorities then backed down and the church was reprieved. However, it is not on the list of chapels royal, for example (Brighton also has a ‘chapel royal’, which is very active but the dean of the chapels royal no longer has any apparent jurisdiction in relation to it).
As to your remarks about the baffling situation at Christ Church, I quite agree, although I imagine that double jeopardy, as extant prior to 2003, was really a creature of the criminal law. The dissonance between the two procedures may, I fear, be exploited in due course unless the state (i.e., the government or the Charity Commission) intervenes. As mentioned, the Bentley case – which is the closest precedent in either of the two ancient universities and where Bentley treated the fellows harshly, though not illegally – ran for more than three decades, and involved university, ecclesiastical and civil courts and parliament. I should add that the uncertainty of the bishop of Ely’s visitorial powers at Trinity extended even into the nineteenth century, and the great polymathic master William Whewell engaged in a vigorous correspondence with the bishop Joseph Allen, and the then home secretary, Sir James Graham, about it in 1842-43.
Also, although I mentioned earlier that visitorial powers have become an effective nullity, the question of their application has revived lately because of concerns about the way in which a number of vice-chancellors and other university administrators have been exercising their powers, as noted here by Gillian Evans (note the reference to Christ Church): https://srheblog.com/tag/the-model-statute/.
Jesus predicted not just wars but also rumours of wars. Don’t underestimate the power of rumour.
I should begin by saying that it can be hard to be completely certain of one’s neutrality on a matter while also acknowledging the importance of intersectionality, but given that, I think I can take up your challenge, at least in a somewhat narrow sense: namely that I do not find the article(s) of Mr Sewell particularly convincing. The one you link to on the Archbishop Cramner blog links of course to a few other articles on that site, which in turn each link to a few more, and so rather than disappearing for time unknown into the archives of that site, I restrict my comments largely the matter of the decision of the President of Tribunals.
Mr Sewell writes that the President’s decision determines that Dean Percy “is not guilty of “serious misconduct”, and that to take forward the complaint of Canon Ward as approved by the Bishop of Oxford by sending the matter for a full Tribunal hearing would be wholly disproportionate.’’
There are two parts to his statement, both of which are flawed. The first part of this — the assertion that the President’s decision determines that he is not guilty of serious misconduct — is the most important misreading. The decision is carefully written so as to make no determination of innocence or guilt whatsoever. To be somewhat more detailed, in para.8 the President formulates the legal question raised by the complaint, namely: `For these purposes, it is sufficient to conclude, therefore, that it is possible that on the balance of probabilities, a finding could be made that the incident occurred as [the woman] alleges.’
The President then quite clearly (to a lawyer at least) determines not to address this question. Rather, she confines herself to answering only the question she is required to as noted in para.2, namely “whether there is a case to answer upon which a disciplinary tribunal should adjudicate’. She is thus choosing to make a narrow decision, and while the distinction may appear overly legalistic, she likely had good reasons for doing so (I elaborate on this below) and thus to misrepresent her decision publicly in this way is inappropriate. Indeed it is all the worse for the fact that her decision was not written with the intention that it be made public (the Church Times writes that it was given to the press by Dean Percy through friends, rather than having been published by the Clergy Disciplinary Commission).
The second part of the statement, that it would be wholly inappropriate to send the matter to a Tribunal, is correct but incomplete. In fact she writes that it would be “entirely disproportionate” to refer the case to a tribunal, given “Christ Church itself has instigated its own inquiry into the incident.’’ The decision thus relies on the existence of the parallel Christ Church process in determining how proportionality should be taken into account in her decision (see para. 9).
….
I mentioned above that the President might have had good reason to confine herself to a narrow decision: It seems likely that this was prompted by the same matter, namely that she did not want to prejudge the conclusions of the Christ Church process. This is both because she wishes to rely upon it in making her own decision, and because she writes in her penultimate sentence states that she is “in no way condoning the alleged behaviour, if it is proved to have taken place’’.
Viewed in that light, Mr Sewell’s misreading of the decision, and the conclusions he comes to from it, appear to me to be deeply misguided. Worse, he asserts his flawed interpretation in quite trenchant terms — he writes that the President “pronounced categorically that the complaint was not “serious misconduct”.’’
It thus appears, from a neutral perspective, that Mr Sewell’s article is not at all decisive. Indeed it is, at least in my opinion, quite wrong-headed. I imagine Mr Sewell’s intentions are entirely honourable, presumably prompted by a zeal to defend the underdog in this tale, but because one must take the greatest of care when dealing with harassment cases, it may not in fact be doing Dean Percy any favours to seek to help him in this way.
“the malicious lying behaviour on the part of some senior clergy and dons”
Perhaps the time has come to name names. You refer to “one known enemy of the Dean, the one who leaked appalling salacious material about him to the Daily Mail”, to “a well-informed but anonymous voice [who] turned out to be a close personal friend of one of the key Christ Church plotters”, and to “other Ch Ch malcontents”. Who are these people: what are their names?
We have been told of a document with false attribution being submitted to the Bishop. Who wrote this document, who appended the false attribution to it, and who submitted it?
Should these names not be made public? And if not, what does that tell us about the validity of these allegations?
Well, it might tell us that the allegations are true but that the culprits can’t be named for fear of legal action.
Or, in the case of the falsely attributed document, that the person whose name is on asserts she didn’t write it, but no one else has owned up to being responsible.
Allow me to explain the issue plainly. I and campaigners for probity in the Church have developed a wide trusting network across multiple constituencies including survivors, lawyers, journalists, academics, senior clergy etc who feel able to trust us with deep intel that for a variety of reasons we cannot directly attribute. Some share specifically on the basis of non attribution.
Additionally, we do try to observe principles of fairness and a presumption of innocence. Further, revision to Church CDM guidelines offer to respondents the anonymity that was denied Martyn Percy by the malcontents leaking to the Daily Mail. We give them greater consideration than they gave him. If CDMs are lodged we will not publish the identities – tempting though it is. We are tough but try to be principled and correct.
You can be well assured however that we do not bluff.
Time and again our predictions have been proven correct eg1 the allegations against the Dean did not constitute “serious misconduct“ eg 2 our publication of the President’s decision ( duly redacted ) was proper and lawful. ( NB the President’s office has not rebuked us or even been in touch after we quoted the advice as to status of these Decisions)
When we speak and Stephen publishes, you have every reason to trust the integrity of the information upon which comment is based. We have no agenda beyond fair process for all.
Thank goodness you’re here, Martin!
Thanks for that. Your peroration is that you have “no agenda beyond fair process for all”, and it seems churlish to argue with that. But I propose to do so. This article is about bullying: the claim is that certain people, some in the Church, some not, have colluded to bully Martyn Percy; others have facilitated that bullying; others again have been complicit or just looked the other way. There is no process, fair or otherwise, that is going to deal with many of the aspects of that bullying, if indeed bullying it be. The only court before which many of the actions of many of the people involved will ever be brought is the court of public opinion. So what is unfair about doing so?
I think you are right to challenge Sewell here. It is unfortunate that most of the individuals posting here appear not to possess much knowledge of the law (some obviously possess significant historical scholarship, but sadly this is unlikely to assist in assessing most of the particulars related to the dispute between Dean Percy and his college). As I hope I make clear in my previous posts, if one does read the Sewell article referred to here with something of a legal eye, it is abundantly clear that his writing lacks any semblance of objectivity. Indeed his analysis of Dame Sarah’s decision is so poor that one can only conclude he is blinded by his certainty of Dean Percy’s innocence.
The fact that he responds to comments on this page by making statements like “you have every reason to trust the integrity of the information upon which comment is based” contrasts sharply, for example, with Steven Parson’s open acknowledgement of his bias in inviting a counterpoint to his views. This unfortunately only reinforces the sense that Mr Sewell is blinded by his zeal — he uses language one would expect from a crusader rather than a lawyer.
Of course he has every right to crusade, but it should be clear what the nature of his mission is. As you say, his claim to be motivated solely by an altruistic desire for fair process is difficult to have any great confidence in, given his evident desire to seek it through the court of public opinion.
It seems a little odd to argue that a lawyer should not be motivated by a passion for justice.
But my real issue with your comments, Charles, is that you played the man rather than the ball. Surviving Church is a safe space, and we don’t welcome personal attacks here.
I take offence at the comment that it is unfortunate that I am not a lawyer. I accept you probably don’t realise how offensive that remark is, but it is. This is space is not reserved for lawyers, and the experience of those who have been abused is valued and respected here as is, of course, the contributions of lawyers and others.
It is certainly not, of course, unfortunate that you are not a lawyer! That was not at all my intention to suggest, nor ever that only legal opinions matter, and I whole-heartedly apologise for the offence I caused you.
My concern is that what is being presented here as an authoritative assessment of the legal aspects of the dispute between Dean Percy and his college should not be taken as such. What I meant was unfortunate was only that it appeared many of those commenting were, quite reasonably in the context, proceeding under the assumption that Sewell’s article gave them a sound legal perspective. Even if you wish to conclude his analysis is to your liking, you should be aware that it is a rather controversial one.
The point I was trying to make was not that Sewell should not be motivated by a passion for justice, I am sure that is very much part of his motivation. My concern is that it appears in this matter, he is no longer objective. Given the weight that his opinion is given here, especially with regard to the fact that he is a (retired) lawyer, it seems therefore important to point out that his assertions are, from a legal perspective, questionable.
I do very much take your point about the nature of this site, but that is part of my reason for commenting. As far as I can tell, and the President of the Tribunals’ decision seems to support this, Dean Percy’s account of the incident in the Sacristy and the account of the alleged victim are incompatible. To declare him innocent seems to me to implicitly assert that the victim has made up her allegations. If that is indeed what the majority of people currently think, it is hugely damaging to her, and I suspect will make anyone who has suffered unwanted attention from a clergyman in a senior position more reluctant to come forward. Is that really an outcome the readers of this blog welcome?
You talk of being objective and quote the President of Tribunals. I believe her decision was that it would be disproportionate for her to take action, but please tell me if I have misremembered. I would not take kindly to having my hair stroked but Given that this was in the course of a conversation about a charity hair cut and the complainant was not upset at the time, I cannot think the way the Dean has been pursued has anything to do with his being guilty or not guilty of this misdemeanor. Having been abused myself I well understand that the complainant, would be worried about any possible implications, I fear them too. Yes, some of us have been at the receiving end of unwanted attention from senior clergy. Personally, although all abuse is serious, I would expect an incident such as this to be treated differently to say rape, or sexual assault of a child, that is the severity of the misconduct, the damage done, and the surrounding circumstances all to be taken into account. I can well imagine that when I acted as verger, necessarily had a relationship with the clergyman in question which sometimes included jocular remarks, and told him I would be undergoing a charity haircut, he may then have touched my hair making some remark which he later forgot about. I am not saying this happened, but it is one of a number of possibilities. Whatever did happen, given the description of the event by the complainant, many people do believe the course of action against the Dean is highly inappropriate to the point of being abusive and extremely damaging to him out of all proportion to the allegation made. In reply to your final question, I personally would be very reluctant to come forward if I knew the perpetrator of a act such as this, which the President of Tribunals took pains to say was not of a sexual nature, would then be hounded into mental breakdown and considerable financial loss and debt. I would find such a course of action to be so unjust, I would not come forward and would want no part in the matter. I would much prefer the clergyman to be given some further training and my point of view explained to him if I felt unable to do so myself. This would not only be proportionate, but if the clergyman understood and accepted this, I would feel safe. If course the situation would be quite different if he felt he could carry on acting like this. I cannot imagine that any court would, even finding the Dean guilty, would punish him as he has been punished. Justice is only justice when everyone received it.
Very well put, Mary. Like you, I would worry about an unwanted touch, but not want to cause a disproportionate reaction. When something similar happened to me, I mentioned it to my husband, but no one else. But I realised later that it had caused gossip. Too late for me to do anything.
I agree with you both.
I would add that in a small and crowded sacristy, where people are passing each other carrying vestments and vessels, it is quite easy to brush someone’s hair or clothing accidentally. And, given that Ms A had hair long enough to be donated to charity, it must have had a considerable volume. So it’s entirely possible that both parties are telling the truth as they see it, and believing in the Dean’s credibility doesn’t denigrate the complainant.
Well, without wishing to appear immodest (or making a claim of possessing some ‘knowledge of the law’), I picked up all of the points you make about Dame Sarah Asplin’s judgment on a first reading, but believe that an alternative interpretation is entirely feasible. As usual, we have to wait to for an outcome. I agree with Richard Pinch that if the offences of creating and using a false instrument were committed at any stage of the CDM process, those responsible should be named and face the consequences. But it is only one of a myriad of unsatisfactory features in this saga.
As I have just commented, I don’t mean to suggest that none of those commenting are versed in the law. That said, you yourself posted that you were “baffled” by the fact that Dean Percy might be subject to two different disciplinary codes which could potentially come to different conclusions — (you say “contradictory” but I think you might mean “apparently contradictory”).
Legally, it is not particularly unusual for someone to be answerable to more than one code of conduct (and hence disciplinary processes). In the context of Christ Church, being both a college within Oxford University and a cathedral, it does not seem surprising that the Dean might be an example of such a case.
I would have thought, moreover, that it is surely relatively commonplace that a cleric might also hold a job or office where the employer is not the Church (e.g. in the Oxbridge context, perhaps a college chaplain also taught for the college). He or she would then be subject to their employer’s code of conduct in addition to that of the Church.
That the same incident might need to be investigated by both employer and the Church would then also be not particularly unusual. To keep with an academic example, suppose our college chaplain published a scholarly article which was discovered to have potentially plagiarised the work of another scholar. One could imagine that the Church might find the potential dishonesty involved hard to determine, and conclude the matter not serious enough to pursue, while the college might conclude that the article showed either our hypothetical Chaplain was dishonest, or a poor enough scholar that he should no longer be employed by the college in an academic capacity.
The two codes of behaviour come to different conclusions on the same matter because they must assess the alleged behaviour in different contexts. In respect of the legal term you mention, it is not double jeopardy because the jurisdictions are distinct.
The Christ Church Internal Tribunal cannot proceed without the consent of members of the Cathedral Chapter (in fact they possess the power of veto), so that is, ostensibly, ‘church’ input even if, as you appear to assert, there are different criteria for discipline of the Dean as a priest (C of E: CDM) or as Head of House and also a priest (Ch Ch: Internal Tribunal) in relation to the same set of facts, or we ought to say, allegations.
I have never been clear how the Bishop of Oxford can exercise disciplinary powers in the Cathedral of which he is not the Visitor. Froghole has explained this seeming anomaly by suggesting that the CDM imports the Bishop’s jurisdiction (whilst, as we both know, practically all other C of E legislation specifically does not apply to Christ Church, including, interestingly, the Dean’s required age of retirement). William Nye’s explanation that Christ Church is a non-Royal peculiar seems to go against the grain that HM the Queen is the Visitor. Of course there are other non-Royal peculiars but in none of them, so far as I am aware, is the Queen the Visitor. Moreover, there is the ‘interesting’ fact that members of the Chapter rank lower than the Bishop but are parties to a potentially far more draconian procedure. Double-jeopardy may not be the appropriate technical term for this (a point also made by Froghole) but it seems apt.
I have no connection with Christ Church, and the only two people I have known from there are both distinguished musicians.
It is true that the Chapter is singled out in the process of determining whether an internal Tribunal should be constituted, but those chapter members are bound, in making that decision, by their responsibilities as trustees of the college and hence are required by law to consider a complaint in a different context to that in which a CDM process would. It is largely irrelevant that they are clerics in this respect.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not claim there are different criteria for the discipline of Percy as a member of the clergy and as Dean of Christ Church. That is a matter of statute.
Your point regarding the bishop of Oxford, if that issue is the most pressing for one in the context of an allegation of sexual harassment, is fair. It does not, however, assist the case you appear to want to make: If you decide that the Bishop of Oxford has no authority in the Cathedral, it appears you wish to contest that Dean Percy should never have been subject to the CDM process in the first place. But if one grant this to be the case, then the findings of that process have no standing whatsoever. It would follow that it would be inappropriate to seek to use such findings to question the legitimacy of a statutory process. This would be even more the case when the instigation of that process had been reviewed and resoundingly validated by a former High Court judge and current President of Welsh Tribunals.
I have some sympathy for the desire for academic pursuit, but that desire must be, to borrow a term, proportionate.
I came to this site on the assumption that it was a place which would be inclined to listen to someone advocating for fair treatment of a potential victim of abuse. Having experience of what such victims go through in an all too personal capacity, I am afraid I was very much mistaken.
Charles makes important points about the decision of the president of tribunals and the objectivity of some posting here.
I would add that It is very disappointing to read comments on a survivors blog that speculate what the complainant felt at the time and attempts to explain the issue away (“a busy sacristry”)
Only Martyn and the woman were in the sacristry at the time and her allegation is that purposeful hair stroking took place following the service. She says that Martyn said he “could not keep his eyes off [her hair]”.
The Kate Wood report says the complainant’s account was ‘credible, true and consistent’.
The President of Tribunals said “There are two credible accounts (from Ms X and Martyn). For these purposes, it is sufficient to conclude, therefore, that it is possible that on the balance of probabilities, a finding could be made that the incident occurred as Ms X alleges.”
My effort to demonstrate how the Dean and the complainant might both be telling the truth, and neither at fault, seems only to have demonstrated that it is indeed impossible to be neutral in this case.
If my previous comment is felt to be unhelpful I am happy to withdraw it.
As had been said before, only the complainant and respondent know what really happened. My point still stands, if, hypothetically speaking you accept the account of the complainant, does anyone think it proportional that the Dean is faced with processes which have led to his financial ruin, a core group deemed to be unfair, a safeguarding document pretending to be written by someone it was not, to be broken by facing numerous processes, and still having to face a process by his enemies. I cannot help comparing that to the possible outcome if the Dean was tried once in a court of law. I believe police decided it did not require legal action. If it had he would not have been tried by persons with a vested interest in his downfall. And what action should be taken against the misconduct of others involved? For instance it is a serious matter to convene a core group consisting of persons whose personal interests are against the Dean. I personally believe such manipulation of processes which purport to administer justice to be serious misconduct. Should not the document purporting to come from someone it did not be regarded as akin to perverting the course of justice? What action is being taken against those who have acted so badly? Does anyone really think they should be hounded in a similar fashion? It does victims/survivors no good in the long run if unjust processes are used to hound respondents. Surely we are looking for just processes delivering proportionate outcomes. Without them no one can be deemed safe. Kangaroo courts and the like have never solved problems, only exacerbated them. I am deeply disturbed about this affair and it’s affect on Dean Percy and his family. Furthermore if we cannot deliver justice, if we cannot administer just processes, there is no hope that victims/survivors like myself will receive them. I believe the outcry in the public domain shows that many are disturbed by what is widely perceived as the injustices thrown up by this case. A system which has shown processes to be not only biased but unfair will never deliver justice. Not to Dean Percy, not to the complainant, and not to other complainants and respondents.
Hear, hear Mary.
With apologies for not having responded to your earlier comment, I would like to begin to answer your question in as much as it is possible. To begin, it is important that, as you say, the police investigated the victim’s complaint. For them to have done so implies that they found her account of events credible. Their investigation would therefore have been to establish if her account was provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Your question asks us to suppose that this was established.
In reality, this is rather implausible, but for the sake of argument one could imagine a secret camera, unexpectedly discovered, recording with clear video and audio exactly what happened, and moreover that what it showed matching the victim’s account in all essential details. Were, however, something like that to come to light, then it is likely that a criminal court would find Dean Percy guilty of sexual assault, a crime under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Given that, the fact that Dean Percy’s account claims he did not touch her would count against him significantly when he was sentenced for the crime. At the low end, he could receive 6 months imprisonment, or a fine on the order of five thousand pounds. The maximum penalty, on the other hand, is a ten year sentence. Regardless, the criminal conviction would mean Dean Percy would either resign as Dean of Christ Church or, if he did not, the college would be forced to initiate its internal Tribunal process to determine that said crime constituted good cause for dismissal. While this would cost the college essentially needless expense, the outcome I think would not be in doubt.
The upshot is that if one, as you ask, accepts what one can reasonably surmise is the alleged victim’s account to be provable fact (by which I mean provable beyond a reasonable doubt) then Percy would no longer be Dean of Christ Church, and would likely be imprisoned for a period of six months to a year or two.
The processes that precede the sexual harassment complaint are not relevant to how the harassment complaint should be treated. My fundamental objection to what I see being played out on this page is the refutation of an accusation of sexual assault, a criminal offence, on the basis that previous events may have caused unfair harm to Dean Percy.
A little disingenuous. The police investigated as they must after a complaint is made. They took no action. This could be because they thought there was doubt that the allegation happened, they believed the complaint but thought it too trivial a complaint to take forward, they believed the complainant but thought she over reacted or misunderstood the situation, or they believed the complainant but did nothing (I refer to the very low number of cases taken to court). Th is an an objective view to f what happened.You have made up the police view of the matter to suit your case. However you may be right. But without knowing why the police took no action we cannot simply assume you are right.
I am totally neutral in this issue, but Kate Wood, if you have quoted correctly, could not possibly assert that the complainant’s account was ‘true’ – credible and consistent, yes – but ‘true’ is way beyond the remit of an independent expert’s report. The only people who know the truth of the matter are Ms X and the Dean.
The real issue at stake here is the proportionality of the further internal Christ Church internal tribunal contemplated against the Dean in the light of Dame Sarah’s findings, albeit couched in judicious language, that whatever happened, it was not serious enough to be referred to the Church CDM tribunal.
I think it is time to call a halt to this discussion thread. There is little to be usefully to be said further when the fact whether something happened or not is in contention. Other readers also will have been turned off by the tone of the discussion and the summary dismissal of the contributions of others.
This thread is being terminated. Any new contributions to this post will be removed from now on. I have already removed several put up since I asked for people to cease their comments as they have (not all) begun to take on an unpleasant tone.