Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T00:31:14.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

All Mouth and No Trousers? Observations Arising from the Decision on Jurisdiction in Re Evans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2023

Neil Patterson
Neil Patterson*
Affiliation:
Director of Vocations and Ordinands, Diocese of Hereford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the time of writing, work continues on a replacement for the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (CDM 2003). This comment explores some issues which have arisen in a recent disciplinary case – Re Evans – where, for the first time, the boundaries of the CDM jurisdiction have been considered by the tribunal. I will first identify the salient facts of the Evans case, before moving on to explore the specific issue of jurisdiction. I conclude with some observations about why this case is significant, especially for those working on the replacement to the CDM 2003.

Keywords

Clergy Discipline Measure 2003Clergy Conduct MeasureEcclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963doctrineritual or ceremonialGS 2277jurisdictionreform
Type
Comment
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2023 , pp. 52 - 59
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See <https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/GS%202277%20Report%20by%20the%20Clergy%20Conduct%20Measure%20Implementation%20Group_1.pdf>, accessed 17 August 2022.

2 Decision of Tribunal in Re Evans [2022], paras 87–89, available at: <https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/Tribunal%20decision%20on%20facts%20and%20conduct%2009.12.21%20FINAL.pdf>, accessed 6 April 2022.

3 Decision on Penalties, paras 34–35, available at: <https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/Tribunal%20decision%20on%20penalty%2023.02.22%20FINAL.pdf>, accessed 6 April 2022.

4 Leave to Appeal Decision, available at: <https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/Determination%20-%20Application%20for%20permission%20to%20appeal%2015.08.22.pdf>, accessed 25 September 2022.

5 Ruling on Jurisdiction, available at: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/Tribunal%20decision%20on%20Jurisdiction%2006.12.21%20FINAL.pdf, accessed 6 April 2022.

6 This section draws on Patterson, N, Ecclesiastical Law, Clergy and Laity (Oxford, 2019)Google Scholar, mainly Ch 6–7; see further the review of this work by P Collier KC, (2022) 24 Ecc LJ 389–392.

7 I am extremely grateful to Dr Charlotte Smith for the snippet from her vast archival research that the letters to the judges first appointed to the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved advised them that although the Church was very grateful for their service, they need not expect ever to be asked to sit.

8 Patterson (note 6), 132–137.

9 Bursell, R, ‘Turbulent Priests: Clerical Misconduct under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003’ (2007) 9 Ecc LJ 250–263Google Scholar.

10 Or, in the case of a bishop, to the Vicar General's court: CDM 2003, s 17(3).

11 Ruling on Jurisdiction, paras 1–3.

12 Bursell (note 9), 251.

13 CDM 2003, s 11(1).

14 CDM 2003, ss 11(3), 12–16 and 17(1).

15 CDM 2003, s 17.

16 CDM 2003, s 17(3).

17 EJM 1963, s 39.

18 See Hill, M, Ecclesiastical Law (4th edn) (Oxford, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, para 6.83; EJM 1963, s 42.

19 At least on Twitter, which seems to be the modern equivalent of the 19th century pamphlet wars, even if not in court.

20 Ruling on Jurisdiction, para 5.

21 Ibid, para 9.

22 Bursell (note 9), 252–255.

23 Ibid, 255.

24 Ruling on Jurisdiction, paras 11–12.