“We wish to close this determination by expressing concern about the route by which this matter came to be before this tribunal. False allegations, rumours and assumptions have been blindly accepted to create a situation where significant harm has been caused. Insufficient time has been taken to question motivations and perspectives, and questions which should have been asked have not been asked until too late. There are two instances which stand out sharply in this case.
“First was the decision of the diocese to move the respondent’s abusive husband into a vacant vicarage within the parish in which she was working.
“Second is the worrying acceptance without question (my emphasis) of that husband’s allegations of an affair between the respondent and Mr Slate….
“We trust lessons will be learned and that the support that the respondent should have received from the Diocese of Coventry will now be provided to her in order to support her flourishing in her future ministry.”
Extracts from the published Determination of a Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal for the Diocese of Coventry, dated 22 July 2025[1], following the recent trial of a complaint made under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (‘the CDM’).
The words above in italics and in the blog heading form part of a Church tribunal assessment, responding to a case based on a CDM complaint against a female priest in the Diocese of Coventry. The case against the Reverend Anne-Marie Ghosh[2] for alleged conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders” was rejected. In delivering their judgment, the tribunal articulated firmly their criticism of the process that had led to the bringing of the formal complaint against the priest.
The story attracts attention, not only because of the vivid, even colourful, detail contained in the account set out in the Church Times, August 8th, page 3: ‘Clergy reproved over case’. It is also a clear example of how poor and bungling process can upend a diocesan attempt to manage a case of clergy discipline. Whatever went wrong in the Diocese of Coventry, whether it was faulty groupthink, unprofessional decision-making or misogynistic attitudes, there is clearly a considerable task to be undertaken to rebuild local trust in the way church discipline is administered. The case often mentioned by Surviving Church, that of ‘Kenneth’, is another example where allegations have been accepted without question and where considerable pain has been caused to an individual.
In this blog post we have been permitted to refer to Kenneth by his real name which is John Brasssington. His case involves an accusation of the abuse of a child which he has consistently denied over five years. There are, of course, important differences between the two cases. In John’s case, the alleged offence involves causing harm to a child; in the other the alleged offence is that of engaging in adulterous behaviour.
Two other features draw the two stories together. Both of the cases belong to the Coventry Diocese, and both involve systems where individuals have proceeded with allegations based on faulty assumptions. John has never been permitted to challenge the assumption of the core group in his diocese that he is guilty. In the CDM case there was, fortunately for Ms Ghosh, an independent tribunal able to see through the accusations brought against her. No such tribunal exists to examine the accusations against John, so he still lives with the cloud of being considered ‘high-risk’ and unable to play a full part in his church.
Before we suggest further links between the Ghosh case and the Brassington case, we need to spend a little time noting some of the other details of the current story which have allowed the most appalling suffering to be experienced by the Coventry priest. The acting archdeacon who brought the CDM complaint would seem to have been too ready to accept the allegations of guilt made by two men in the account, the ex-husband and the training incumbent. This latter individual had a duty of care and nurture towards his curate, especially in the first two years of ministry when she was having to deal with a failing marriage. The thought that a vicar, one presumably vetted before being given this delicate task of helping a novice priest, should behave with such apparent malevolence is a cause of dismay. This apparent antagonism shown towards the curate on the part of the vicar suggests that he is unfit to exercise the ministry of training/supervision for a fellow priest ever again.[3] No doubt the stories of late-night vigils outside the curate’s home trying to find direct evidence of ‘unbecoming conduct’ will have circulated among his congregation. Such behaviour will, no doubt, have undermined the relationship of respect that normally binds priest and people together.
One thing that is worth pointing out is the different treatment afforded to church members depending on whether they are lay or clerical. One speculates that John might have received a proper hearing if his case had gone down a tribunal route equivalent to that under the CDM. Such a tribunal would, hopefully, have been alert and able to see through the assumptions and faulty reasoning on display in his diocese. The safeguarding process in the Church does not seem to know what to do with a layman who stubbornly refuses over half a decade to admit guilt for an offence that he maintains never occurred. Over five or six years, John, supported by his friends has had to stand up to a long and debilitating demonstration of raw institutional power.
The final chapters in both the Ghosh story and that of John Brassington have yet to be written. As regards the Ghosh case, the new Bishop of Coventry, the Rt Revd Sophie Jelly, has the difficult and challenging task of picking up a demoralised and institutionally battered priest and seeing what the future holds. One hopes that the diocese has resources, both financial and pastoral, to deal with this situation so that Ms Ghosh can make a new start in ministry where she is surrounded by people of understanding and compassion. As far as the Brassington case is concerned, is it too much to hope that a certain humility might yet prevail among the diocesan safeguarding authorities which will allow them to remove his ‘high risk’ status and allow him again to play a full part in church life? Several attempts have been made to close his case down, but the attention of outside bodies, including now his MP, have kept his case alive and attracting support. No doubt, the new Bishop will be wanting a fresh start in managing discipline matters so that her diocese can move forward in this area without unresolved past cases continuing to remind people of serious failings in this area.
Public exposure of unprofessional behaviour by clergy and poor judgement shown by professional committees do not inspire confidence in any institution. Is it just possible that the salacious detail of the Ghosh saga might create a new appetite for the Church in the Coventry diocese and throughout England to get things right at last in the way discipline cases are handled? The criticisms of the Coventry handling of a falsely accused priest will not vanish quickly from peoples’ memories. The Ghosh case and the comparable Brassington case are too serious to be forgotten. There is, of course, the hopeful possibility that instead of cover-up, denial, and silence, the Church in Coventry and elsewhere may move forward in a way that chimes in with the zeitgeist of the moment, one which is desperately seeking transparency, honesty, and integrity. The correct way forward will require decisive leadership, perhaps to be provided by a new Archbishop. Is it too much to hope that the cancer of weakened reputation and collapse of trust in the Church will be decisively checked by a new leader? He or she will have to opportunity to offer spiritual and moral leadership to the nation. It may be that in the middle of all the political and moral chaos in the country and the world, these values of clarity, honesty, and integrity may be rediscovered. The Church may indeed rediscover its role of providing inspiration and moral guidance for our nation.
[1] The full Determination can be downloaded from the Church of England website: determination-the-revd-anne-marie-marsh-22-july-2025_0.pdf
[2] In the tribunal’s Determination the respondent priest is referred to by her married name, Anne-Marie Marsh. The Church Times report states that she has reverted to her maiden name.
[3] The tribunal said this about his evidence at paragraph 12: “We found the evidence of Mr Gold to be troubling. It was quite apparent that he was trying to minimise the length and extent of the difficulties in his relationship with the respondent. He demonstrated a worrying willingness to believe the worst of the respondent. We were concerned that he had clearly been told about Mr Marsh’s abusive relationship with the respondent and yet he still accepted without question the allegations made against her by her husband without speaking to her about them.”
V. v. v. far from the vision of Micah 6:8……
An independent review into Kenneth’s case should now take place in order that he receives justice. It should take into account the incompetence shown by the Diocese and should have the authority to take action against those who have caused a great deal of harm to innocent victims, not once, but twice.
Fr Stephen and Mary.
The “Kenneth” case has been extensivly covered in SA over a number of years.
I have had some concerns about how much coverage and commentary there has been surrounding the “Kenneth” matter from his supporters especially in a Blog that places victim-survivors in a central position.
Likewise the Christ Church College Oxford and the MP case has had extensive coverage most likely well deserved given the huge difficulties systemically that the Rev MP case outlined.
I am also concerned that the identified survivors in both the “Kenneth” case and the survivor or survivors mentioned in the MP case seem to have not had a voice.
Both cases should have a totally independent review outside any Church process.
False allegations are exceedingly rare and the differential in power dynamics often allow for the defenders of “Kenneth” and also MP and his supporters to potentially “flood the zone” perhaps creating an unsafe atmosphere for the survivors and families linked to each case to present their lived experience.
This is an extremely delicate balance to get right but I do have some concerns that we need to have the grace compassion and deep listening and discernment to make a safe space in this magnificent space to discern how we could also make this space safe for the voices of the survivors and their families in the “Kenneth” matter and perhaps the MP matter to be heard.
It may be wise council to seperate the “Kenneth” case and the “Gosh case” into seperate posts ?
Please also attach and assume the legal terminology “alleged” to the MP and Kenneth cases for the avoidance of any legal issues.
Surviving Church is a potentially life saving safe space and are we risking that safety when we amplify arguments linking very serious matters as potentially “False allegations” even if the internal Church investigations are flawed.
Perhaps with the “Kenneth” case and my referal to the “MP” case often posted about historically in Surviving Church over a number of years, we need to also provide space for the voices of victim-survivors linked to the cases of “Kenneth” and within the “MP” cases to also be given a balanced hearing.
I find Surving Church a life line and healing compassionate and caring both in the Posts and the comments. My words of caution are in no means critical of either Rev “MP” and his team of supporters or of “Kenneth” and his wonderful passionate and caring advocate but I do have a concern that without some balance victim survivors and their families and friends linked to the “MP” case and the “Kenneth” case may read these series of posts which could create retraumatisation.
It is such a delicate situation especially when being trauma informed and compassionate to the other individuals whose lived experience is linked as potentially “false allegations.
Thank you again Father Stephen for your brave caring compassion and wisdom over the long years of shining the light and providing a safe space for those of us wounded by Faith communities.
Richie
Offence-injustice-inversion-secrecy [BAH-KCJ-DARVO-NDA} runs through lots of cases. To keep an eye on this kind of basic formula is good. Maltreated victims, and those falsely accused of bullying-abuse-harassment, benefit from an emphasis on clarity. I agree with you, about it often being helpful to reference cases individually. An interwoven narrative can be confusing. It would be good to see the briefest synopsis on ‘Kenneth’: charge(s)-discussion of evidences-conclusion. Also, is there any core correspondence-from the Church or other? An extended dialogue is fine, but strengthened if there is a skeletal outline in existence and referred back to.
Besides contrived and false allegations, the MP case involves forged risk assessments and other faked documentation, all ostensibly claiming to be “official CofE” material. The NST and Archbishops’ Council have refused to investigate this for over 5 years, and continue to cover up for the perpetrators. As Clive Billenness showed in an earlier blog on this site, these cover-ups lead all the way to Lambeth Palace. The Kenneth case is just as bad, and like Fr. Alan Griffin, clearly demonstrates that the CofE is engaged in the deliberate weaponising of safeguarding against clergy and laity it seeks to destroy. The NST and Archbishops’ Council play a full part in these campaigns.
Only fully independent regulation will sort this out. Funnily enough, the leadership of the CofE are against such external scrutiny.
Thanks Anon.
I understand the huge trauma that MP has gone through. And I have read across the documentation relativly extensivly .
MP Case.
The MP case requires a fully independent review because it shows how failed the current system is not only in the UK but in its reflection of how power and control in what could be called “Total Institutions” or “Greedy Institutions” within ethnographic and sociological research. It also shows how a possible change maker in an elite Academic institution can be targetted and ostracised by in groups with huge establishment power.
I was careful in my post to hold space compassion for MP and his wonderful support base and would join for calls for a totally independent enquiry.
In fact the resistance to independence in safeguarding from Lambeth Palace, Nobodies Friends ginger groups and power groups within the House of Bishops all of whom are likely greatly fearful of independent audit and oversight reflect hugely in Rev MPs case.
We see similar power dynamics in Australia NZ USA and Canada. Our calls here in Australia for total independent audit and independent safeguarding are also being hugely resisted with some really difficult cases shining light on the complete failure of internal safeguarding.
I look forward to the results of the Independent enquiry in the MP case.
On a personal note if Rev MP does read this post my own discenment on his case is that I am sure there are aspects of some interactions with individuals that are regretful to him and that if the situation had been handled differently they would not have become weaponised and amplified into what seemed to me be links to other interactions which were not safeguarding issues but ones of failed communications and vested interests.
The MP case is I guess a Canary in the coal mine for the utter failure of internal safeguarding processes controlled by a scared and compromised leadership.
Clice Billerness and MS and other supporters of Rev Percy have my utmost respect.
Kenneth Case.
Likewise in response to Mary below I send my thoughts and prayers to Kenneth for what must be a terribly traumatic time.
We need and require an independent enquiry and also a cultural and safety review of the Cathedral involved to ensure safety of all staff congregants and children. The way Kenneth was treated systemically was full of conflicts of interest and I fully support independent oversight and a new enquiry.
Fr Allan Griffin.
My reading of this case was of a corrupt official downloading gossip to another compromised operative in the D of London. Gay clergy are often targetted as being predators of vulnerable children due to their sexual orientation and the Fr AG case is an egregious example of that.
Thanks Anon and Mary for responding and I hope that my comments here clear the air a little so that what seems to be a concensus emerges that victim survivors can support the independent .investigations into possible False Allegations and that creating independence in safeguarding protects everyone.
And thanks again Fr Stephen for this life saving site.
Richie I appreciate your concerns. I would like to make three points. Firstly the case against Kenneth was unjust, and evidence with held. Survivors are complaining and protesting against unjust, incompetent and corrupt processes. Kenneth ‘s case can be highlighted because Stephen has not been threatened with legal action if it is on this blog. Stephen has received such threats about other cases, so sometimes one case can be used to highlight problems in other cases. Secondly, if the Church upholds cases against alleged abusers, but the process used against them is deeply flawed, not proving their guilt and not allowing them to show their innocence, they too are victims and survivors. Thirdly, it does no good to survivors when people are alleged to be abusers when the process is so deeply flawed. Had their been evidence in the case of Kenneth which proved the allegation, a flawed process would not have been necessary, a proper process would have found against him. As well as deeply harmful to Kenneth, those survivors who can prove their cases may well be disbelieved. For instance we are aware that because someone is found guilty of rape by the courts, they may be innocent. The importance of just and fair processes is clear. Without them genuine cases which can be proved can, and are dismissed, and the lives of innocent persons ruined. If we cannot know that an abuser is guilty because processes are flawed, unjust, and corrupt, this does not help the cause of survivors.
The archdeacon has been ‘Acting’ for a long time. His predecessor had to resign because a CDM complaint was upheld against her.
Did the former Acting Bishop of Coventry (Ruth Worsley) know about the situation around Ms Ghosh before the CDM complaint was made?
I know from personal experience over many years that the diocese of Coventry is dysfunctional. It’s impossible to make any headway with a complaint. I could write a book!
Peejay, writing a book or journal is both healing and often can provide both corroboration and tendency evidence in historical and current cases. It can shine a light for survivors and families and with discernment and wisdom can heal and uplift.
DAILY MAIL today has two letters of interest. The second and shorter one is by me. Here the ‘Lessons of the ‘Lycra nuns’ priest case’ pasted below. Is a woeful ability to deal with serial abusers matched by a hounding of some innocent people on false allegations?
Lessons of the ‘Lycra nuns’ priest case
Daily Mail26 Aug 2025
THE conviction of Chris Brain, founder of the so-called Nine O’clock Service (NOS) in Sheffield, stirred memories for me.
In the early 1990s I was training for the Anglican priesthood. Like many, I first saw NOS on television: nightclub lighting, pounding music and young women in provocative outfits dancing around the altar. Even the consecrated bread and wine were carried casually down the aisle by girls who often broke into dance, as if it were all part of the show. For me and many others, this was a travesty of Christian worship. My contemporaries and I were troubled by how NOS seemed centred not on Christ but on the personality of Chris Brain – yet our concerns were dismissed. Bishops and senior clergy heaped praise on NOS, hailing it as innovative because it drew in young people. They either could not see or did not want to see what lay beneath. When the scandal finally broke, those same bishops fell suddenly silent, offering no apology. Again and again, the Church of England has dismissed warning signs, ignored whistleblowers and silenced victims. As a survivor of clergy abuse myself, my heart goes out to all those damaged by
NOS. Abuse flourishes when church leaders care more about protecting reputations than about protecting people.
Rev MARK EDWARDS, Dinnington, Tyne and Wear
THE conviction of a former priest for indecent assaults is a reminder of the clay-footed incompetence of our Anglican bishops.
Two out of five ministry trainees in my group complained of being sadistically accused of sexual misconduct and given no fair chance to defend themselves, yet Chris Brain (he’s not the Messiah, he’s just a very naughty boy) was celebrated. I gave up on religious vocation and now work as a judge.
JAMES HARDY, Belfast
Article Name:Lessons of the ‘Lycra nuns’ priest case
Publication:Daily Mail
Section:LETTERS
Start Page:51
End Page:51
Richie,
Thank you for your careful engagement with controversial issues.
I first began addressing safeguarding issues to General Synod in connection with the Bishop Bell case; I found victims contacting me because they understood that bad process for one of the most admired bishops of the Cof was unlikely to be any friend of theirs.
Those of imus who have “ stuck with” the Kenneth and Martyn Percy cases do so for a variety of reasons. You cannot expect the average CofE member to kept up with multiple complex cases so we concentrate on a few. Matt Ineson’s was a good one but that was significantly expose whereas the other two remain scandalously outstanding – so we keep on.
It might surprise you to know that even these cases are not the ones that appall me the most. That honour goes to one where the Diocese bought off the complainant with a great deal of money and an NDA: neither I nor my very reliable informant can understand how the Diocese managed to allocate and hide such a large settlement in the accounts – but I promised I would keep confidentiality. I keep my promises.
But if we “bang on” about certain specimen cases it’s not only that they are unresolved and important – it may be that these are the ones we can talk about.
Hi Martin,
Thank you for your brave honest systemic work over decades.
As an advocate in Australia now semi retired with major health issues I have seen the absolute worst cases similar to those in the UK.
I have reached out to you and would greatly appreciate Fr Stephen sending my email,contact to you.
My comments on Kenneth and Rev MP were made from a genuine place of concern and I did try to perhaps clear the air slightly to achieve a concensus.
Thecsituation in Australia NZ and SA in the Anglican Church is just as bleak as in the UK.
Long term advocacy is health damaging as my recent heart event has confirmed triggered by a case history that broke the metaphorical camels back.
I wish Kenneth and MP all my positive thoughts compassion and care and hope that by sharing more of the Australian situation after I return to health I can sister somehow in shining the light.
Your work has been truly inspirational.
Curious if Martin could do ‘Naming the beast’ and ‘Slaying the beast’. But before exposing scandal, it could be even more important to say why Anglicanism has so much of it.
Evangelicalism within the C of E complained it had little influence – when it had so much that it disdained the help of “those nasty” honest nonconformists (preferring both exotic AND “old school tie” power maniacs and empire builders); and it ceased teaching the public to pray (after all, praying is considered so un-evangelical nowadays).
A contingent state church (and reflected glory in other countries) forgot that it has to guard against triumphalism by praying with Daniel ch 9 v 3-21. Do “evangelical” parishes and places tend to hold matins and evensong less often?
Smaller Presbyterian fellowships I had the joy of attending in rural Scotland placed an equal emphasis on the midweek payer meeting and Sunday services. The Anglican laity are silenced in every way! Spontaneous public prayer by the laity is welcome and to be encouraged , as are MP-EP-HC liturgical rites.
‘Vision for the Church’s Future. Beyond the confusions’ posted 15 July 2021 on SC has a comment below about ‘Citizen Church’ and Rev Ryan Forey. Is ‘Citizen Church’ a subject of interest just now?