Christopher Peak was the registrar to the Diocese of Gloucester between January 1985 and November 2012. During this period he also represented the then-bishop of Gloucester, Peter Ball, in his personal capacity, when indecent assault allegations were made against the bishop. The Solicitors Regulation Authority, in response to a complaint from the National Secular Society, found this constituted a conflict of interest with his official duties towards the diocese. Mr Peak has accepted their findings, and has agreed to permanently remove his name from the roll of solicitors maintained by the SRA.
The matter is reported in detail as follows:
Solicitors Regulation Authority Christopher Peak
Law Society Gazette Retired solicitor agrees to quit roll over conflict of interest in defending bishop
National Secular Society Solicitor struck off for conflict of interests in defending bishop
The office of registrar (like that of chancellor) originated as part of the bishop’s household. The conflict which has arisen in this instance strikes me as having its roots in the confusion between the diocesan bureaucracy and the bishop, with the former being essentially an emanation of the latter (in effect, the latter’s retinue and chancery), the two entities (the bishop being a corporation in his/her own right) arguably remaining somewhat indistinct. In this instance, whilst the conflict was clear from the vantage point of the SRA and Law Society, it might not have seemed so clear to a diocesan… Read more »
In an entirely secular context, I recall, now a long time ago, when in rural areas solicitors in private practice served as Clerk to the Justices in the local magistrates’ court or (clearly with the Lord Chancellor’s consent) as Registrar of the local County Court; the current equivalent is a civil District Judge. I’m not sure that in earlier times the same person might sometimes have held both offices. The Clerk to the Justices was both the court’s administrator in every aspect and at the same time legal adviser to the lay Justices; the Registrar was similarly both the court’s… Read more »
The problem is that we are constantly invited to view this from the point of view of the Church. That is the fundamental error causing poor thinking to permeate the entire debate. If we begin from secular good safeguarding practice all this gets resolved pretty quickly
Church structures and systems are the problem not the solution.
Indeed they are the problem. And the principal/agent conflict means that the interests of the agents will invariably trump those of the principals (i.e., those whom the Church claims it exists to serve). I will rephrase my earlier comment: the growth of an ecclesiastical bureaucracy, at the diocesan level is a cancer upon the Church, and it has led to the creation of a political Interest whose primary purpose (regardless of any claims to the contrary) is the advancement or preservation of its own interests, pay and perquisites, as an end in itself. In this, ecclesiastical bureaucracies are no different… Read more »
A very insightful contribution
It may be that the conflict of interest was not apparent, or recognised, by Mr Peak in 1992 (as it should have been), but issue of the diocesan registrar wearing multiple hats and, therefore, being required to address this issue on a regular basis was highlighted nearly six years ago by Chancellor June Rodgers (sitting as a Deputy Chancellor of the Diocese of London) in her mammoth judgment in the Spitalfields case, Re Christ Church, Spitalfields [2017] ECC Lon 1. In paragraph 624 of her judgment handed down on 12 March 2017 she said this: “A preliminary Directions hearing was… Read more »
[Reply to Froghole continued] Chancellor Rodgers continued: “The Diocesan Registrar, a solicitor, acts not just as the legal officer/advisor to the diocese but when a Consistory Court takes place he is the clerk to the Court. Indeed, in preliminary Court hearings relating to procedural issues, he as the Registrar, acting judicially, will make directions for the Parties to comply with before a main hearing, Further, he may assess the costs afterwards in the event of an award. How could a party, who has had an award of costs made against it payable to another party, perceive as fair, an assessment… Read more »
This is just the tip of the iceberg. In my experience registrars use their position to get other more lucrative work for themselves or their own law firm. The solution to the problem is that registrars should be made employees, (not office holders as at present), and should be prohibited from any related private work. Registrars should have no other duty except to the Diocese. Christopher Peak is an extreme example of a conflict of interest, but there are other much more subtle ways in which lawyers use their inside knowledge to their own advantage, to the detriment of the… Read more »
I can’t beliee Mr. Peak is the sole example of this kind of conflict of interest and since he’s retired, the effect on Mr. Peak would seem to be de minimis.
Mr. Peak has accepted the findings and the consequences and suich conflicts of interest need to be found and taken care of, but I wonder whether the notoriety of the Peter Ball case caused the spotlight to catch Mr. Peak in its glare?
We saw something similar recently when it seems that lawyers and staff paid out of diocesan sources were used to protect the bishop of Oxford from claims that were, they claimed, defamatory of the bishop personally. It was not clear then that the interests of the diocese were perfectly aligned with those of the bishop as a person.
Just so I’m not misunderstood – Mr Peak should not have acted as he did and I’m sure that the sanctioning is warranted and probably should have happened far sooner. This is an agreed outcome and given that Mr Peak was at risk of costs and doesn’t want to practise anymore, it’s hardly surprising that he did not wish to debate the finer details of the wording of the outcome. That said… 1) The SRA seem in a right muddle as to the role of the Registrar. They correctly recite the relevant Fee Order. At one point they say that… Read more »
An interesting comparison to make arising from the Peak case is the amount of detail the SRA, as regulator, considered it right/appropriate to put into the public domain about the circumstances of (in effect) a penalty by consent, with the very limited information given on the C of E ‘Penalties by Consent’ webpage of penalties imposed on clerks in Holy Orders who have accepted such penalties (including prohibition from ministry for a period) pursuant to the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, even where background information about the case can be found elsewhere by searching online. In one case (that of the… Read more »
It’s deplorable, though not surprising, that 30 years ago the Church didn’t place the interests of victims and survivors first and foremost. But I’m astonished that as recently as 2014 Mr. Peak should apparently have regarded ‘keeping the matter out of court’ and ‘saving the Diocese and the Church enormous embarrassment’ as laudable, despite the harm done to survivors and any future victims.
The duties of the diocesan registrar are set out in Schedule 2 of The Legal Officers (Annual Fees) Order 2022 (UK Statutory Instrument 2022 No 879).
A daunting ‘job description’ which I would have thought had inherent risks of conflict of interests. Schedule 1 is of considerable interest as well – the actual registrars’ fees for each diocese in 2023 shown payable by the DBF and the bishop’s liability. There are wide variations, and doubtless good reasons for them, but overall they would lend force to Froghole’s argument for centralisation.
Indeed Rowland. And now I think about it, an interesting question as to whether performing the roles required by legislation would be a defence against a charge of breach the relevant solicitors’ (or barristers’, or whichever the appropriate regulator were for the individual) conduct rules were such a conflict to arise (not at issue in Mr Peak’s case, because providing personal advice to the Bishop on matters of criminal charges is clearly not within Schedule 1).
Albeit in a very limited context, Paragraph 2-(1) (c) of Schedule 2 provides that: “ if a legal dispute arises between parties who are both church officers, [the Registrar] may decline to advise either party but is at liberty to advise both parties with a view to helping them to resolve their dispute if, in the registrar’s judgement, it is desirable to do so.” This does appear to me to sanction advising disputing parties, although again it is necessary to stress the very limited scope of the context to avoid any possible misunderstanding that this has any bearing on Mr… Read more »
What a shame it took a complaint from the National Secular Society to draw attention to this. I suspect they are already looking at other possible examples and will complain about those. It really is one own goal after another and the consequences are very grim for everyone involved.
This is a very important decision. By it, the Solicitors’ truly independent and highly competent regulator has made it clear that the principle of avoiding conflicts of interests is so important that it is worth pursuing and punishing a solicitor for a breach 30 years prior, even though that lawyer had ceased to practice and had no intention to return to practice. The SRA has begun to lift the corner of a carpet under which the Church of England has swept too much for too long. Expect more revelations. I am personally aware of several similar cases – precisely how… Read more »
I suspect that few outside the law can have any idea of some of the problems which arise in practice. I think one of the most ‘bizarre’ cases which came my way involved two half-sisters, each using the surname of the other’s father.
Further to Peter Gross and Marise Hargreaves’ points in particular, it wasn’t so much the notoriety of the Ball case that led the National Secular Society to look into it, it was the appearance that Ball had been treated so leniently, presumably because he was a bishop and the Church wanted to protect its reputation as much as possible. The more we researched, the clearer this became and, shockingly, several arms of the law were complicit in this leniency. Christopher Peak was but one of the senior figures in the Church that were seeking to minimise sanctions against serial abuser… Read more »
Keith, I have read your 2018 piece in full. I endorse what you say , partly because I share some of your sources but primarily because I share your conclusions. I encourage others to read the long article. Though I knew this, it still reads well and is relevant – especially the para “ As I have noted before, the church’s strategy over IICSA is to admit past mistakes but point to procedural and administrative changes and claim all is right now.“ This is exactly what has happened. The CofE has established an “Independent Safeguarding Board “ that is neither… Read more »
I absolutely agree with you. I have read this article before – it should be compulsory reading for anyone who assumes things are okay in state and church. Things are not. The IICSA transcripts made for very uncomfortable reading when an account had to be given by some of those involved as to why leniency was given as well as why nothing was done for a long time. I am glad there are those who call this to account and draw attention to the fact everything is not alright. Until safeguarding is removed from the church and placed with a… Read more »
Marise. That was really generous, thank you. I have since discovered a more comprehensive account of the whole conspiracy by abuse solicitor David Greenwood called Basically Innocent? Basically Innocent ?: The facts behind the scandal of Bishop Peter Ball’s sexual abuse of children and young men and how the establishment helped him get away with it.: Amazon.co.uk: Greenwood, Mr David: 9781701622012: Books 100 pages, very cheap on Kindle. BTW if anyone thinks our motives are anti-Anglican (in fact we are very international and most of our work involves the RCC), they will soon have the opportunity to see what we… Read more »
According to a diocesan registrar, when a cleric admits offences and accepts a CDM penalty, the offences should still be referred to as allegations. Is this correct? The complainant has also been threatened with contempt of court proceedings if the complainant discusses the case with anyone. Is this NDA by stealth?