On Wednesday (27 January) the trustees of Christ Church Oxford received a letter from the Director of Regulatory Services of the Charity Commissioners (CC). This letter questions the decision to set up a second tribunal against the Dean. In particular, the CC are:
“seeking further information and assurances from the members of the Governing Body about why establishing a Tribunal is:
• in the best interests of the charity and its beneficiaries.
• a responsible use of the charity’s resources.
We will also examine how, when reaching this decision, the members of the Governing Body:
• took account of our published guidance and previous regulatory advice; and
• identified and managed any conflicts of interest and / or loyalty.” The letter adds: “This is not an exhaustive list. Full details of the information and assurances we require will be set out in a separate letter to the charity’s registered main contact.”
All that I have quoted so far is taken from a comment published yesterday on this blog by David Lamming, a retired lawyer, and a member of the Church of England’s General Synod. He is among those who have been working for such an intervention by the CC in the Christ Church affair. He could see, as I have done, that whatever the rights and wrongs in the present round of the struggle between Dean and members of the College, the affair has involved a series of profound failures of process which relate to events back two years or more.
What is the Commission saying with this letter? They seem to have a detailed understanding of the way that Christ Church governors have been responsible for expending eye-watering amounts of charitable money on the campaign of seeking to remove the Dean. Such a campaign hardly counts as charitable activity. Christ Church College, along with every other charitable institution will have had to prepare for the CC a list of the charitable purposes for which the charity exists. These would then have to be approved by the CC and published annually with the public accounts. No doubt among these charitable purposes would be found some mention of education of the young and the maintenance of the buildings and inherited property. The sustained persecution of a Dean, by the use of legal harassment, will not be included among these objects. The letter is brutally clear in saying that the CC “have concerns about the prudent application of charitable funds and the proper process of decision making within the charity as the dispute involving the Dean continues.” As the report of the letter in today’s The Times is headed, “Oxford college warned over dean’s tribunal.” And it is significant that this warning has been sent to all the members of the Governing Body, alerting them to their individual fiduciary duties as charity trustees.
This letter represents an important milestone in the Percy saga. I have never hidden from this blog my support for Dean Percy. I salute him as a fellow supporter of the Church abused, whether by institutions or individuals. My chief concern has been always for him to have fair process when accused by others. His evidence has to be heard in an environment that is properly independent. When independence was allowed into the Christ Church persecution process at an earlier stage, with the hearing by Sir Andrew Smith (a retired High Court judge), all the charges against the Dean were dismissed. The Smith tribunal decision, which has not been released but which I have been allowed to read, is far from being entertaining. Nevertheless, two salient points stand out from the written decision. One is that Smith spotted a degree of malevolence among the accusers of the Dean and he included examples of their manifest hostility in an appendix. The second point is a negative one. None of the accusations of serious misconduct referred to the Dean’s personal morality. All the arguments were about the difficulty of agreeing levels of pay for the teaching staff, including the Dean himself. It was only much later that accusations about safeguarding were brought into the dispute. The Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team (NST) became involved because in March 2020 there was a suggestion that the Dean had mishandled four safeguarding concerns arising from reports made to him by fully competent adults at the college. This complaint was escalated by the Church of England to a formal enquiry and a core croup was established to investigate. This core group had to be reconstituted when it was pointed out that it included the very members of the Governing Body who had made the complaint to the NST. The conflict of interest was glaring and obvious and they had to go. Finally, in September, the core group announced its findings. The Dean was cleared of the alleged safeguarding failures, with Dr Jonathan Gibbs (Bishop of Huddersfield and the lead bishop on safeguarding) stating publicly that the investigation “had concluded that the Dean had acted entirely appropriately in each case,” (see the Church Times, 11 September 2020.)
The saga has received extensive coverage in the media, but those who have stumbled across the Percy case as it has been played out recently might think that the whole thing hinges on an allegation of a sexual misdemeanour. For those of us who have been following the saga over three years, the disputed events in the Cathedral vestry on 4 October 2020 are just one small part of the longstanding campaign of vilification against the Dean, spanning over three years. The CC will be fully aware of the history of the campaign and the way that the Governing Body of the College have been behaving in ways that fail the smell test of equity, independent inquiry, and justice. I would go further and describe the behaviour of the Dean’s enemies as having the hallmarks of a persecuting mob. A mob, as we saw in an earlier blog, does not reason. It only feels. The feelings of this particular mob of highly intellectual Christ Church academics are aimed to bring about the destruction of the Dean. The reasons for this enmity can be discussed elsewhere. One thing is clear is that the feelings of an irrationally-aroused group do not make for fairness or justice. The mob cannot think; it can only feel and act destructively, as we see it doing in the hallowed walls of Christ Church (and as we saw it doing on Capitol Hill in Washington on 6 January 2021.)
Christ Church put out a statement yesterday, clearly in response to the CC letter, though this would not have been apparent to those not in the know. We expect that the publicity firm working for the College wrote it and received payment for writing it. The other firm that has played such a prominent part in the process of persecution against the Dean is the legal firm of Winckworth Sherwood (WSLaw). There may now be an understandable reticence by the Governing Body to commit further to using this firm in view of their high fees and the way that such expenditure will need to be accounted for by the College by the accountants of the CC. The CC is the one body in British society that can stand up to the powerful College lawyers. WSLaw know, as does the College, that the potential legal power of the CC stretches a long way. In the last resort the CC can operate the ultimate sanction of taking away the College’s charitable status. It is unlikely to press this nuclear button, but the mere existence of this threat gives the CC real power.
Throughout the process of the persecution of the Dean by senior members of the College and the NST, we have seen several examples of the questionable use of power. So now, the intervention of a truly neutral body, the CC, with its readiness to question such things as excessive legal bills, biases, and conflicts of interest, makes a real difference to the way the Dean’s persecution proceeds in the future. If a favoured firm of lawyers can no longer be used as a ‘fixer’ to enact the malevolent intentions of the Dean’s enemies against him, this will surely change the atmosphere at the meetings of the Christ Church Governors. Each Governor is also having to take his/her trustee responsibilities individually. This should focus the minds of Governors considerably. I wonder how many of the Governors of Christ Church have really paused to think about their individual responsibility for the public trashing, not of the Dean, but of the resources and reputation of their venerable and hitherto respected institution within the University of Oxford. If they have not, the CC letter will certainly bring each of them up short and force them to consider it. Indeed, they would each be well advised to seek independent legal advice.
The intervention by the Charity Commission in the Christ Church affair is made in the context of a whole history of toxic relationships within the college. How these are resolved is open for discussion by cool heads. Perhaps what the CC intervention is saying to us is that there must be better ways of resolving disputes than by the weaponization of church legal structures and the endless use of legal processes which threaten to destroy individuals and completely undermine the organisation which has chosen to go down a path of vindictive persecution.
A very balanced article. I do not have the faintest idea why this attack on the Dean was started in the first place. There must be more to it than simply a dispute about finances. The article suggests that there have been long standing problems within the College but I have no idea what these problems are. Is there anywhere where these problems are explained?
Terry, I don’t know about the relationships generally within the college, but the campaign against Dean Percy started when he ruffled some self-important figures when he questioned the college’s safeguarding policies and procedures following the Lavinia Woodward incident in December 2016. Andrew Billen told the story in his feature article in The Times Magazine on 29 February 2020: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/christ-church-scandal-lavinia-woodward-college-dean-martyn-percy-and-the-censors-xkxwr0qmd
Billen’s article details the circumstances of the Smith Tribunal, and quotes a number of the poisonous e-mails set out in an appendix to Sir Andrew Smith’s decision (the ‘examples of manifest hostility’ on the part of certain dons towards the Dean referred to in the above post.) The 11 months since Billen’s article was published have seen the further attempts to oust the Dean, including a letter to the Charity Commission in May 2020 by 41 dons claiming that the Dean was unfit to remain a trustee and and culminating in the current CDM complaint and decision by the Governing Body to set up a second tribunal, the decision now being challenged by the Charity Commission (CC). As I commented on an earlier thread on this blog, it is ironic that the CC letter is effectively questioning the fitness of those college dons to be trustees of the charity.
Mr Waite, as well as the Times article of 29 Feb 2020 to which you have been pointed (and which I believe can be read without any paywall at Jonathan Aitken’s website), there is the Financial Times article “Scheming Spires: trouble at Oxford’s Christ Church” of 11 October 2019 by Henry Mance & Madison Marriage. Both articles should be read in order to gain a fuller picture.
The 2019 Financial Times article inevitably does not assist with the present situation of the Dean and other Christ Church trustees (the Dean is a trustee also). Most media reporting concentrates on the College and overlooks that members of the Cathedral Chapter have joined the dons in this second Internal Tribunal seeking to oust the Dean – and did so also on the first occasion. Indeed, under the Statutes the dons do not have that power acting on their own: they may only proceed with the consent of the Chapter [Statute XXXIX, Part VII para. 42]. It would be an astonishing state of affairs even in this complex setup if the dons acting alone could dismiss the Cathedral Dean! The Chapter members could have vetoed both tribunals.
There is also the separate matter of the C of E’s independent actions, which are probably best not discussed at present.
The Queen is the Visitor of Christ Church, and some have suggested she should intervene in this matter. I do wonder whether the Palace have suggested to the Charity Commissioners – very discreetly, of course – that it would really be preferable for them to take a hand, than for Her Majesty to have to get involved.
Many thanks. The statutes detail the charitable purposes of the House, but they do not appear to indicate how the members of the governing body should be liable for their acts and omissions qua trustees, or what are their liabilities to each other.
This being so, trust/charity law would apply, the general rule being that trustees will have joint and several liability. The principles applicable to joint and several liability are enshrined in the Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/contents), but there are one or two instances where case law still applies, for example with respect to the liabilities of trustees inter se. For example might be where one trustee procures professional advice which turns out to be wrong: that trustee could be exposed to the other trustees for the cost of that advice and/or any loss to the trust. Under the 1978 Act the duty to indemnify extends to trustees in post at the time of the applicable breach; certain recent retirees could therefore be exposed.
I will leave aside the question about whether or not there has been a breach of trust, save that if both sides are found to have been in breach of their fiduciary obligations they may have to indemnify the trust (or each other) for their losses; given that this has been >40:1, that could be an asymmetric problem for Dr Percy.
However, who are the beneficiaries of the trust? I would suggest that it is the governing body and the student body, since all are ‘members’ of the House, but it might also include those other persons (for instance the choir) who belong to the foundation, since there is no meaningful separation between cathedral and college.
In view of the sums dissipated on this scandal, the indemnity exposure that the various members of the governing body (some of whom may be subsisting on narrow margins) may be significant relative to their stipends: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/contents. The indemnity would presumably be capped at the loss suffered by the trust.
That is not the only threat to the viability of Christ Church. There is also a risk that the CC could take action under Parts 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Charities Act 2011 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/25/contents).
The ramifications of the Christ Church scandal could extend well beyond Oxford, and touch upon collegiate foundations everywhere in the UK, together with schools, hospitals, almshouses, etc. College fellows might see their freeholds being under threat and could demand higher compensation as a quid pro quo for the risk of being a trustee, or else governing bodies might be liquidated or reduced to a small class of professionals, who might wind up being at constant daggers drawn with the academics (a common problem in many red brick and plate glass universities).
This saga could run and run, and into Chancery. However, I will defer to people better informed than I am.
I’m not sure that this is the place to discuss legal fine detail, but as I have repeatedly banged the drum on behalf of the choral foundation as belonging to the Cathedral (and not to the College), Statute I. 5 below clearly confirms the independence of the two distinct elements which together make up the unique body of Christ Church:
“5. The powers reserved to the Dean and Chapter
(a) There shall be excepted out of the powers assigned to the Governing Body under clause 4(a) of this Statute, and reserved to the Dean and Chapter, all powers hitherto lawfully exercised by the Dean and Canons or the Dean and Chapter in respect of:
(i) the Cathedral Church and its fabric and appurtenances, including the Chapter House; and
(ii) the Cathedral Chaplains, Organist, Lay Clerks, and Choristers, and other officers of the Cathedral Church; and
(iii) the residentiary houses at the date of these Statutes assigned for occupation by the Dean and the Canons together with Cloister House.
(b) The Dean and Chapter shall have the exclusive disposal of the moneys to be annually set apart under the provisions of Statutes VI and VII as the “Cathedral Fabric Fund” and the “Chapter Fund”, but shall present their accounts to the Governing Body at least once in every year.
(c) In the exercise of the powers reserved to them under this clause of this Statute, and in the disposal of the Cathedral Fabric Fund and the Chapter Fund, the Dean and Chapter shall be subject only to the legal authority of the Visitor.”
I don’t offer any interpretation on potential division of trustees’ liabilities – if any!
Rowland, the references to “Dean and Chapter” make me wonder if the statutes you quote predate the Cathedrals Measure. And if so, have they been superseded.
The Cathedrals Measure 1999 does not apply to Christ Church Cathedral. Section 37 of the Measure provides: “This Measure shall apply to every cathedral church in England (other than the cathedral church of Christ in Oxford except where this Measure otherwise provides) and references therein to a cathedral shall be construed accordingly.” This exclusion is to be continued in the replacement Cathedrals Measure, which was given final approval by General Synod in November 2020 and is expected to receive Parliamentary approval and Royal Assent later this year. Clause 51(1) provides: “This Measure applies to cathedrals in England only but does not apply to the cathedral church of Christ in Oxford, except in so far as Schedule 5 amends a provision which applies to that cathedral church.”
Section 48 of the Cathedrals Measure specifically states that the Measure does not apply to Christ Church. Its unique status is preserved.
The Measure received final approval by General Synod in November 2020. I think it will be known as the Cathedrals Measure 2021 when it has come before parliament and received the Royal assent. As far as I am aware, that hasn’t happened yet, but it will be in the pipeline.
Addendum: I think it’s fairly obvious that I had not seen David Lamming’s reply before posting mine.
Thanks, both. What can I say? Somehow it figures!
With respect to the separation of cathedral and ‘college’, I am aware of that there is a domaine réservé for dean and canons. That is why I used the phrase ‘no meaningful separation’. An examination of Christ Church’s accounts will reveal that they are consolidated; there is no reference to a chapter fund or a fabric fund. The income of the cathedral is exceeded by its expenditure, yet it is not deemed to be in deficit since (for instance, in 2019 – the last available published accounts – the cathedral and school had an income, together, of £2.24m, but expenditure of £5.51m, but the differential is made up by the House as a collective). Were the cathedral to rely on its own resources – insofar as that expression has any meaning in the case of Christ Church – I suspect its deficit would result in the Commissioners putting it in ‘special measures’ in the style of Exeter or Peterborough, though as noted, the Commissioners have no charge over the cathedral owing to Christ Church’s special exemptions from successive Cathedrals Measures.
What happened in 1866 is that the future governance of Christ Church was determined by a panel of referees, mostly Liberals: (i) Sir Roundell Palmer (later Lord Selborne, LC, a very conservative Liberal); (ii) Charles Longley, archbishop of Canterbury; (iii) Sir John Coleridge (a retired queen’s bench judge); (iv) Sir William Page Wood, V-C (later Lord Hatherley, LC); and (v) Edward Twisleton (a former poor law commissioner). Their recommendations became the basis of the 1867 Act. It was they who, taking account of the antipathy of some of the canons (notably H. L. Mansel and E. B. Pusey) to reform decided upon the mode of joint government enshrined in the Act and the statutes (the statues themselves were drafted by Montague Bernard, Chichele professor of international law and fellow of All Souls’). From these statutes there emerged the chapter fund and fabric fund, which were intended to function as prior charges on the revenues of the House as a whole, with the surplus on those funds being at the disposal of the governing body for the payment of the students ‘and for other college purposes’. The vulnerability of these funds was demonstrated almost immediately in 1868 when the canonry held by William Jelf was voided and suppressed: the portion of the chapter fund allocated to the upkeep of the canonry and canonical house was, by resolution of the governing body, put at the disposal of the governing body.
On this basis, I think that it is legitimate to assert that there is no *meaningful* distinction between cathedral and college.
One other point to make: the dean, canons and students draw no salary in their capacity as trustees; their compensation is solely by dint of their administrative and/or academic responsibilities. I would make that point in view of some remarks (I think on TA) about conflicts of interest, though what effect that fact would have on the whole imbroglio is moot.
Thank you for that detailed explanation. The Statutes, from which I quoted verbatim, were approved by Her Majesty in Council as recently as March 2015, and they must represent the legal reality even if Christ Church have chosen to use different accounting procedures. Then, again, there is the reality that the College and the Chapter have separate seals, all of which emphasises the enigma of this unique body. But I will not say any more! At least this exchange has explained to readers that the Cathedrals Measures do not apply to Christ Church!
Many thanks, as ever, Mr Wateridge!
The struggle between chapter and students for the creation of a dyarchy was essentially a contest between one group of clergy and another: the leading ‘reformers’ (including Thomas Prout, Thomas Chamberlain, Thomas Bayne, George Blore, Charles Sandford, Richard Benson, Henry Hoole, H. L. Thompson, H. P. Liddon, Robert Faussett) were mostly in orders – Sandford, for instance, later became bishop of Gibraltar and Liddon later a famous dean of St Paul’s – and there were other conflicts too: Faussett’s father had been Lady Margaret professor and a canon.
I should add that one of these reformers was a certain C. L. Dodgson. Indeed, Dodgson was arguably second only to Prout in pressing for change, and it led to some tensions between him and the then dean, the lexicologist Henry Liddell (though Liddell was somewhat sympathetic to reform). Unfortunately, Dodgson kept no written record of his participation in the agitation.
Then, as now, to observe the shenanigans at Christ Church is to see life ‘through the looking glass’.
Stephen,
Thank you for this article on the situation between the Dean and Christ Church Oxford and for highlighting what has now become obvious to anyone following the case – namely, the sheer vindictiveness and malevolence on the part of the Christ Church Governing Body. Besides what seem to be evident conflicts of interest, it appears somewhere along the line they have collectively lost their moral compass, the very thing of which they wrongly accused the dean.
Hi Christina, nice to see you here!
Hi Janet,
I’m so glad to see Surviving Church is writing about the ongoing scandal at Christ Church and it is very good to see that the CC is now calling them to account.
George Carey has contributed to the discussion with a significant article in the Daily Telegraph today (Saturday 30 January), which refers to Martyn’s case as well as to his own and those of the Bishop of Lincoln and the late Bishop George Bell:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/29/churchs-unjust-treatment-clergy-has-created-climate-fear/
I don’t think I will be the only survivor to have little sympathy for George Carey. He’s never shown much sympathy for us. As I’ve said before, in my view it’s perfectly proper that PTO should be removed during an investigation. In his case, his track record of defending an abuser and deliberately concealing evidence from the police does warrant removal & investigation. It’s an indication of his lack of feeling for survivors of both Smyth & Ball that he feels it appropriate to write like this. Where is his remorse for all the abuse he allowed to happen and be covered up while he was ABofC?
I have read all the Bell report. It’s very clearly NOT exonerating Bp Bell. It’s making justified criticism of the way the investigation was handled. Personally having read it, I am very glad ‘Carol’ received some compensation at least. Her account of abuse is clearly credible. It simply wasn’t able to be proven.
Where I agree is that the core group process is secretive and not fit for purpose. Also that there is disparity in the way this and CDMs are applied.
But it gives a very poor message to survivors that he chooses to criticise the system’s failures by defending clergy accused of safeguarding failures.
Shame he’s never spoken out in defense of those of us who have been abused, as far as I can see.
Jane, it’s understandable that you feel like that. However, I look at this strategically. We survivors on our own can make only limited progress. If we join forces with the many clergy who have experienced injustice and bad process from the Church, we are a much more powerful force for change.
There’s an old saying, ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend.’
Besides, why shouldn’t clergy who are falsely accused have someone to champion them?
You’re quite right, Janet. But I’m afraid that unimportant people like me will not be swept up, as it were, and included in the clean up, but forgotten while everyone concentrates on the high status people who have been abused.
I like that saying, Janet!
And I agree about being strategic.
And about people who have been falsely accused needing support too.
I think it’s quite difficult for anyone to support both sides in the same case. Which is what we are grappling with here, isn’t it, at the moment?
But of course a deliberate false accusation or unwarranted escalation is in itself a form of abuse, and I hope we can always be supportive of all victims of abuse here.
In the case of Ball, Carey and Lincoln, I am not convinced that they are falsely accused though. The percentage of malicious or false accusations is actually very small. Certainly we know that the discredited False Memory Syndrome Foundation https://news.isst-d.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-false-memory-syndrome-foundation/ was supported by paedophiles, and one of the founders supported their view that sexual abuse of children was not harmful.
Everyone deserves a fair hearing as you say, and so yes I can unite with George in calling for a more independent, transparent and fair process!
As you say, Athena, this needs to treat everyone with the same degree of rigour. You know I hope that you are as important as anyone else, but certainly the system doesn’t seem to treat us that way.
I wonder if his intervention will make any difference?
Jane, Without commenting on the details of any of the cases, just to say that in the paragraph of your comment naming Ball, (I think you meant George Bell, not Peter Ball), Carey and Lincoln, and saying that you are ‘not convinced that they are falsely accused’, the inference from your reference to false memory syndrome is that they have all been accused of actual abuse. Whereas that was the case with Carol’s complaint against the late Bishop Bell, the recent core group investigation concerning Lord Carey and the (yet to be resolved) CDM complaint against the Bishop of Lincoln relate to alleged safeguarding failings. Neither has been accused of actual abuse.
My apologies, David, thank you for correcting my typo and yes I should have made it clear that there is of course a difference in failing to follow due process and I should have made that clear in relation to George Carey and the Bishop of Lincoln. I was certainly not trying to suggest that either of them were accused of abusing anyone.
Sins of ommission can of course be as serious in their consequences as sins of commission, and may also be met by denial, which I suppose is what I was clumsily trying to say.
My apologies for the confusion any offence caused.
It isn’t “the” inference, it is an analogous allusion to the need to query the motives of those behind what is aptly described as wrongful escalation beyond what is appropriate for the actual derelictions, serious in differing degrees as the latter are.
In every single case Abp Welby is being made to look like a melodramatic jobsworth because those that claim a monopoly on hijacking these cases won’t be up front about their methods.
BTW excellent post Steve and excellent thread everyone – thank you.
Jane if you have access to today’s Church Times you will be delighted (as I am) that the complainant from the vestry has spoken publicly and strongly in her defence. There is an article and also a letter that she has written with name and address withheld. One in the eye for a regular commenter on this blog as you will read. (free access to either two or four articles for non subscribers)
Well, I hope we’re not in the business of poking people in the eye! The problem with leaks is that not all the information squeezes out. And of course, that means we shouldn’t comment. I am very sorry that the complainant found some comments hurtful. I, for one, found the suggestion that she had become caught up in Martyn Percy case very concerning. And I hope she picked up on that concern. Now we find that she considers herself mistress of her own fate, and we should be very glad of that. Not to say, relieved. I hope she is being properly supported. The church does not enjoy a good reputation in that respect. So we should all continue to support her in prayer, and Martyn Percy, too. And all who are tangled in this and other webs.
Hi Petra,
yes I was glad to read her letter and the article as I felt her voice had been silenced in this up until now.
I though it was a remarkably balanced, measured and gracious letter and I do hope we can all now respect her call for privacy and refrain from further speculation.
I understand that she does have support, but as you say Athena this continues to be a hurtful and incredibly difficult process for all involved, with no likelihood of a speedy resolution. Like you I will continue to hold them all in my prayers.
The Charity Commission letter, and the internal response of the college Governing Body, contained in an e-mail to GB members/trustees and leaked to the Daily Telegraph, is now the subject of a report on the Church Times website:
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2021/5-february/news/uk/charity-commission-to-quiz-christ-church-trustees-over-percy-tribunal.