|
|
|
Ecclesiastical Case Reports
Re Seabrook
(Appeal Tribunal, Clergy Representation Rules: April 2001)
General Synod election - election addresses - fairness
The Revd Richard Seabrook complained that in the course of the election of clergy from the Diocese of Chelmsford for membership of Canterbury Convocation and the General Synod, only 500 out of the 517 electors received a copy of his election address. Fr Seabrook represented himself in the appeal, Mr David Brown, the diocesan election officer, attended the hearing and supplied information and, with the consent of the parties, Canon Michael Hodge, General Synod Elections Scrutineer, assisted the tribunal with the technicalities of the single transferable vote system. The tribunal was satisfied that each candidate was asked to supply 500 copies of his election address. The evidence of Fr Seabrook, which the tribunal accepted, was that at least 8 or 9 electors had informed him that they had not received copies of his address in the bundle despatched to them. Since Mr Brown was unable to give firm evidence that the necessary additional photocopies had been made, the tribunal concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that 17 clergy did not receive Fr Seabrook's address. Noting the infelicity of the drafting of rule 26 of the Clergy Representation Rules 1975-1999, the tribunal was mindful that on the evidence of Canon Hodge, Fr Seabrook could have beaten either of the last two successful candidates had he received four additional high preference votes. The tribunal found as follows:
(i) that the mistake in asking for only 500 addresses was both an infringement of the rules and a procedural irregularity in the conduct of the election. Reliance should not be placed on out-of-date statistics as to the number of clergy as had been the case here;
(ii) that there was a possibility that if 17 more clergy had received the address, Fr Seabrook might have received enough further preference votes to have overhauled his nearest rival;
(iii) that the appeal should be allowed. It would require an unusual set of circumstances to justify dismissing an appeal where there is a significant risk that there has been unfairness.
A fresh election was therefore ordered.
[MH]
|
Search the Case Reports & Journals (issues 1 to 39) |
|
|
