|
|
|
Ecclesiastical Case Reports
R v The Bishop of Stafford ex parte Owen
(Court of Appeal: Schiemann, Thorpe & Rix LJJ, August 2000)
Team rector - renewal of licence - judicial review
Following a refusal by Hooper J of permission to apply for judicial review, the applicant renewed his application before Schiemann LJ who granted permission and ordered an expedited hearing of the substantive matter before the Court of Appeal. The court assumed jurisdiction without finally ruling on whether it had jurisdiction to examine the decision of a bishop. The applicant sought to quash the decision of the Bishop of Stafford not further to extend his term of office as team rector of the parish of the Holy Evangelists, Hanley. It was submitted that the consultation procedure adopted by the bishop prior to coming to his decision was likely to give rise to unfairness and, in the event, did so.
Facts
Tensions had existed in the parish for some years. In the summer of 1997, the Archdeacon of Birmingham had been asked to carry out a review of the Hanley team ministry. The applicant's term of office ran out in January 1998 but, with the bishop's consent, the applicant stayed in post. The archdeacon reported in April 1998. In June 1998, the bishop indicated that he wished to follow the procedures of the Code of Recommended Practice for Team and Group Ministries approved by the Standing Committee of the General Synod of the Church of England. The applicant's review under paragraph 1 of the Code was not completed until January 1999. A meeting took place on 27 January 1999 which was not attended by the churchwardens. In accordance with the Code, it comprised two parts, the latter part being in the absence of the applicant. It was contended that the views of the meeting were not adequately summarised and conveyed to the bishop and copied to the applicant. The note which was sent to the bishop and copied to the applicant stated that the meeting felt that the Hanley Team Ministry would benefit from a change of leadership but this should not be seen as a negation of the applicant's many gifts and achievements. Shortly before the hearing in the Court of Appeal, a fuller note emerged which records specific criticisms made of the applicant. The bishop and the applicant met for discussion on 3 February 1999 and on 11 February the bishop handed the applicant a letter stating that the applicant's tenure as team rector would not be renewed. In accordance with the Code, the bishop gave the applicant a further opportunity to discuss the matter which took place at a meeting on 31 March 1999. The bishop did not change his mind and the decision was duly communicated to the congregations on 18 April 1999. The Annual Parochial Church Meeting, which was held on the same day, passed a resolution dissociating itself from the recommendation made at the meeting on 27 January. The bishop consulted further but concluded that the decision reached should not be changed and this was communicated to the applicant by letter dated 16 June 1999.
Decision
Schiemann LJ accepted that it was unfortunate that the churchwardens had not been present at the meeting on 27 January, but that their absence was not an irregularity so as to requiring a re-running of the process. He noted that the bishop had consulted each of them subsequently and prior to reaching his decision. He further concluded that there was nothing unlawful in the chairman of the meeting not formulating a resolution which set out the reasons for the recommendations. The bishop was not acting unlawfully in not asking for more detail of the reasoning. He had been in office for some time and had the benefit of the archdeacon's report following the inquiry which he had set up. It may have been that the team vicars acted unfairly in not voicing their criticisms of the rector until that part of the meeting for which he was absent and that the chairman should have recorded those criticisms in his summary. However, even if these matters were made out, they were not causative of the decision of the bishop who followed as near as may be the procedures which he had indicated he would follow. As a matter of discretion he declined to interfere with a decision taken as long ago as February 1999, the quashing of which would not have any practically useful result. Thorpe LJ, whilst concurring, was more critical of the meeting on 27 January 1999. He considered the guidance at paragraph 96 of the code 'woolly'. He stated 'Any process that is honest must surely be open and the recently disclosed minute of the meeting of 27 January taken by the chairman satisfies me that the vital meeting of the review group convened to answer the paragraph 95(c) question was not conducted openly'. He continued, 'I do not see how the process can be described as either open or fair unless the individual whose future is at stake is given reasonable opportunity to reply to criticisms of his self-appraisal within the review group.' He criticised the review group, particularly the team vicars, for holding their fire until the rector was no longer present to defend himself. Rix LJ, also concurring, considered that the comments made at the meeting in the applicant's absence did not differ materially from or add materially to the substance of the well-known case against the renewal or extension of his team rectorship.
Note: The judgments of all three members of the Court of Appeal will be reproduced in the second edition of M Hill, 'Ecclesiastical Law' to be published by Oxford University Press in March 2001.
|
Search the Case Reports & Journals (issues 1 to 39) |
|
|
