The Church of England issued the following press release this morning.
Next stage of Makin Review CDMs announced
05/06/2025
Following the conclusion of the work to review all clergy under the authority or oversight of the Church of England who are criticised in the Makin review, it was announced in February that the National Safeguarding Team (NST) would seek to bring disciplinary proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) against 10 clergy including two bishops. In all cases, the complaint was ‘out of time’ and so the permission of the President of the Tribunals needed to be sought to initiate proceedings. The President has now considered the applications and granted permission in seven of the 10 cases. This is an independent judicial process, and the National Safeguarding Team entirely respect the decisions.
The NST will now initiate proceedings under the CDM against the following individuals:
No further action under the CDM will be taken against the following individuals:
The decision to bring CDMs was undertaken in line with the process announced in December and concluded in February with recommendations of an independent panel and reviewed by an independent barrister.
Victims and survivors and all those criticised in the Makin review have been informed and support offered. The National Safeguarding Team will make no further comment on these cases whilst the CDM proceedings are under way.
I am the victim of John Smyth who came forward in 2012. We now know from the Makin report and Cape Town review that three ArchBishops and eleven Bishops knew about the abuse by John Smyth by August 2013 Yet, the majority do not appear on this list. The Makin Review was tasked with investigating the response of the CofE to the disclosure, yet, patently not enough was done to find Smyth, stop him and bring him to justice. This was the greatest failure, yet the majority remain untouched. Jo Bailey Wells was forced to “step back”, yet is not… Read more »
I sympathise. One of the problems is that many may have ‘known’ in 2013, but the extent of their knowledge is less clear. Anybody who read the Ruston report and did nothing deserves exposing. For others, they may have been unaware of the extent and brutality of the abuse.
So when you say ‘they were told’ we maybe need to clarify?
Of course, lack of curiosity is an issue.
Lack of curiosity , turning a blind eye, is looking after yourself an excuse. Totally wrong. Many more Bishops should be subject to CDM . There should have been no level of brutality acceptable by anyone. The Church will not be trusted again if they continue to diminish accountability.
Of course, lack of curiosity I included as something to be investigated, and Welby included that as a falling short (or sin) in his own reflections. It is wrong. But ‘wrong’ is surely not a binary quality? ‘brutality’ can mean different things to different people, and times change. Of course Smyth was hideously brutal. But is every schoolboy or adult beating brutal? One could say that Smyth was an extreme of what used to be common in past eras. extreme because of the physicality, and extreme because of the ‘spiritual abuse’ aspect. Maybe not current bishops, but would not prior… Read more »
The secrecy of these proceedings is hugely unfair both to victims and to those whose names have been mentioned. Proceedings in the Crown Court have to be open unless there is some good reason for them being in private and then restrictions must be no more than essential – for instance when a witness in a case of sexual assault has to be protected (over and above the lifelong anonymity of victims) then victims and a representative of the media will still be permitted to be in the court – although the witness may be shielded from view they will… Read more »
I assume you are referring to this
https://open.substack.com/pub/jegerton/p/a-dogs-breakfast-f7b
There should be no need for secrecy. If there is then something is badly wrong. Transparancy is required for all concerned.
Most of the clergy here are retired – does the CDM still apply to them? And what sanctions can be applied to a retired priest with no PTO?
Deposition from Holy Orders.
Not under the CDM 1963 (as amended). As far as I am aware deposition from orders has been proposed but has not yet been legislated. The replacement CCM is still under parliamentary scrutiny.
Thanks Rowland. I assumed that the CofE had reinstated deposition.
Yes, it applies to retired clergy and the penalties are no different to those in active ministry [Section 24 of the CDM 1963 (as amended)]: “(a) prohibition for life, that is to say prohibition without limit of time from exercising any of the functions of his Orders; (b) limited prohibition, that is to say prohibition for a specific time from exercising any of the functions of his Orders; (c) removal from office, that is to say, removal from any preferment which he then holds; (d) in the case of a minister licensed to serve in a diocese by the bishop… Read more »
Apologies for the howler in both of the above replies. It should, of course, be the Clergy Disciplinary Measure 2003 (as amended). The draft CCM 2025 does introduce a provision for deposition from orders, but that has yet to be enacted.
An issue – already emerging in some responses to the decision of the President of Tribunals not to allow an out of time prosecution of three of those the NST targeted – is the secrecy of the process. Unless a Tribunal decides otherwise or a defendant asks for a public hearing, hearings are in private under the CDM. Almost all cases to date have involved sexual incontinence between consenting (mainly heterosexual) adults, and I suspect that the secrecy provision reflected a belief that this would be so at the time the CDM was passed. The secrecy provision has now become… Read more »
Thank you. I had already read your own website article. I remain neutral on this topic and was solely answering the question whether the CDM applied to retired clergy. As we both know, the answer is ‘yes’ and I can think of at least two recent cases, one of them a prohibition for life imposed after the respondent had renounced his orders, wrongly thinking that this would make him immune from any disciplinary action.
The CDM as it currently stands applies to anyone in Holy Orders. The person you know can’t have renounced his Orders (which is a fairly lengthy legal process under the Clerical Disabilities Act) as that would have made him safe from action under the CDM. Perhaps he gave up his licence/PTO? He would still have been subject to the CDM as it seems he found. Yes, penalties for retired clergy or those who don’t intend to minster further (but have not renounced their Orders) can seem a bit pointless but I suppose it’s a measure of justice for the complainant… Read more »
I cannot readily provide a case reference at short notice, but the penalty was imposed under the CDM and the point of the case, and my reason for referring to it here, was the Tribunal’s imposing the penalty for serious misconduct while in orders and its jurisdiction not being circumvented by the ploy of the respondent renouncing his orders – and that course certainly did “not [make him] safe from action under the CDM” as you suggest. I will see if I can track down the case.
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/revd-simon-lumby-decision-on-penalty-4165-8934-6614-v.1.pdf
Many thanks for providing this helpful link which is a very similar scenario to the case I have mentioned. It is possible that my recollection of a costs order against the respondent was mistaken but I have not had any success in tracing the case report to establish the position, one way or the other.
As an afterthought, it may be that the respondent resigned, rather than renounced his orders, before the CDM tribunal hearing. If I locate the case I will report back here.
I believe, as in the case of Simon Lumby (see links above) that is what happened – he resigned midway through the CDM process. I remember somewhere, perhaps in the DECISION, or DECISION ON PENALTY paperwork a reference to this.
DECISION:
https://www.churchofengland.org/about/governance/legal-resources/clergy-discipline/decisions-made-under-clergy-discipline-measure-2003
DECISION ON PENALTY:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/revd-simon-lumby-decision-on-penalty-4165-8934-6614-v.1.pdf
Aside, there is a useful webpage on the CofE website publishing all of the published tribunal decisions:
https://www.churchofengland.org/about/governance/legal-resources/clergy-discipline/decisions-made-under-clergy-discipline-measure-2003
Thank you. Simon Lumby’s resignation and intention to relinquish Holy Orders are recorded at paragraph 19 of the decision on penalty which you helpfully linked previously (and have now repeated here). I’m familiar with the C of E webpage of tribunal decisions but, unfortunately, have no recollection of the name of the cleric in the case to which I have referred. The facts in ‘re Lumby’ are remarkably similar, and it may be that was the case in question. The remaining doubt is my recollection (which I now have to accept as possibly mistaken) that the respondent was ordered to… Read more »
None of that will make any practical difference to a cleric without PTO. I think the main punishment would be the shame of the penalty, however ineffectual it was.
In the case I have cited below, prohibition for life after renouncing orders, the respondent was ordered to pay an eye-watering sum in costs.
I cannot see the case to which Rowland refers but back in 2000 I was given public credit by a number of leading London lawyers for running a successful Parliamentary campaign to prevent the financial regulators obtaining any costs against a defendant in any case before what was then the Financial Services & Markets Tribunal and is now the Upper Tribunal unless they could show that the defendant’s conduct was egregious. Previously the regulators had been able to obtain costs quite easily and this had undoubtedly led to individuals settling to avoid financial ruin even when they had an arguable… Read more »
I’m afraid I see no connection between the role of the FSA and the jurisdiction of the courts ecclesiastical.
It’s self-evident that in the case I mentioned the respondent’s conduct had been egregious in the extreme to result in prohibition for life – far removed from a ‘rebuke’ – and the order for costs was made in the same way as would happen in the civil courts and by a similarly qualified judiciary.
Actually Parliament secured that cost orders would not be imposed by the Upper Tribunal so you have misunderstood the position. It is unfortunate that you have not produced a case number so that we can look at what the Tribunal said.
Sorry, I think you are under a misapprehension. This was, as you would expect, an ecclesiastical court’s decision and has nothing to do with the ‘civil’ Upper Tribunal or any parliamentary involvement.
I tried to assist and answer the original question posed by Sam Jones. I hope I have responded courteously to the numerous ‘supplementaries’, including yours, but must now draw a line. With respect, I can’t spend any more time on this.
Was the order enforceable?
I have no knowledge, still less experience, of enforcing costs orders made by the ecclesiastical courts, but such orders occur not infrequently in faculty cases. Not exactly the point here, a contempt of court in the ecclesiastical courts can be referred to the High Court and dealt with there as if a contempt of that court carrying the same potential sanctions.
The point is whether or not clergy without PTO can suffer any detriment from having a CDM brought against them. If a costs order cannot be enforced against them, it seems not. If it can be enforced, that’s a major detriment.
Jonathan Fletcher has already lost his permission to officiate, and I understand will come to trial on 30th June 2025 (for offences not directly related to Smyth). No idea whether the loss of permission to officiate was in any way affected by Makin. But it should have been.
Jonathan Fletcher is about to stand trial for indecent assault (8 counts) and GBH. There are many more accusations of spiritual abuse and misuse of power. I think that was quite enough to remove his PTO, which the diocese of Southwark did several years ago, and far outweighs his conduct in turning a blind eye to Smyth’s abuse, doesn’t it?
Let’s not pre-assign guilt. We will soon know. I think it is sub judice or something anyway. But we do not know how much he knew about Smyth, and if he was fully aware then in my view this would be more serious than current allegations. But as you say his PTO has already been removed. I was only mentioning his name because he was not mentioned in the original post. He must be one of very few still alive who MAY have been very aware of the brutality of Smyth. In addition, I used to be one of his… Read more »
His trial has now been postponed until 2026 in order that a fitness to stand trial can be established.
Thanls. Shame there is a delay. It has been going on for years.