UNDER SCRUTINY.
THE CHARITY COMMISSION
INQUIRY.
In January 2020, the Charity Commission opened a regulatory
compliance inquiry into safeguarding concerns about the Methodist Church.
The Charity Commission requires all Churches registered with it to have an
adequate safeguarding policy in place. Oddly, this new investigation
came only five months after the Methodist Church
had submitted to the Commission a revised reporting process for
serious incidents.
The Methodist
Church claims that
its aim in safeguarding is to create a culture of informed vigilance at all
levels in the Church. It maintains that safeguarding cannot rely upon
procedures alone – it depends also on people. Safeguarding officers are now
told that it is important to recognise that they do not simply apply procedures.
It is people whom they protect.
As for the Church’s responsibilities to report
safeguarding failures to the Charity Commission, the Church is committed
to:
“making a report to ..the
Charity Commission …in respect of serious safeguarding matters."
These are fine words with lofty aspirations - why then this latest
investigation by the Charity Commission?
The action is prompted in part by an open letter to
the Commission about concerns within the Church of England. This
letter was signed by more than fifty persons.
The Commission received the Church of England complaint on
11th August 2020 - a month after the Methodist Church
had made its latest commitment to the Commission on safeguarding.
The Church of England complaint centres on allegations that
the Church’s complaints system has no properly constituted appeal or review
procedure. It states that there is no remedy to any abuse of person or
process, no matter how egregious the failures to abide by the Church’s own
rules or basic principles of law and good practice may be. It identifies a
"core group" in the safeguarding system which controls everything.
According to the complaint, the Church of England has no
comprehensive ‘conflicts of interest’ policy. It claims that there is
unwillingness in the Church of England to exercise available discretions in
the selection guidance to ensure a fair and unbiased process throughout the
deliberations of the central management of the Church. It claims that there
has been secrecy and reluctance to acknowledge error when senior managers
have breached the rules of the Church.
In summary, the complaint to the Charity Commission is that there
is a regime in the Church of England in which partiality, privilege and
reputational management have taken precedence over due process and proper
standards in the complaints system.
If all this seems familiar to readers of this website, it is
because many of the above charges might be demonstrated as being applicable
to Methodist
Church -
by using the case of Rev Peter Timms. And that may be what the Charity
Commission is currently doing.
Even an initial look at the Timms case reveals:
a) When Rev Timms took his complaint to Methodist Church House, he
was sent a false
confession to sign. Attempts to coerce him into signing this
incriminating document continued for more than two months. His refusal to
submit to the threats was classified as “bullying”,
"manipulation" and “harassment”.
b) Local members of the Church in Bexhill were told by Methodist
authorities to report any movements by Rev Timms which might
contradict his claim that he was ill and could not attend hearings by a
complaints panel. This procedure of covert
surveillance breached several standing orders of the Church.
c) When Rev Peter Timms would not stop his objections to the
procedures adopted against him by connexional officers in London, the
Bexhill[-based Circuit Safeguarding Officer, John
Troughton, unjustly accused Rev Timms of four acts of criminal
behaviour, including one of intimidating
a female.
When Rev Timms objected to these allegations, particularly that of
intimidating a female, John Troughton immediately withdrew the charges. He
wrote a short note of apology. However, as Rev Timms pointed out in his letter
to Troughton, the scandalous charge had already been read by
others. John Troughton had had no evidence whatsoever to
support these defamatory allegations.
d) Much of the discontent surrounding the Timms case centres
upon the selective policy of the Connexional complaints panel, which acted,
in response to his complaints, in ways reminiscent of the Star Chamber.
The petition
to the Charity Commission with regard to the Church of England stated:
"Much of the
discontent centres upon the secretive world of the National Safeguarding
Team (NST) core groups, which act in ways reminiscent of the Star Chamber,
synonymous with the selective use of arbitrary unaccountable power, concentrating
effective control of process in the hands of a very few, who exercise
wide-ranging discretions afforded by guidelines devised by Church House"
This only requires the word "Methodist" to be inserted
before the words "Church House" for it to also apply to the Timms
case.
A secret session of the connexional complaints panel found Rev
Timms (the complainant!) guilty of a breach of confidentiality.
There is no record of the considerations of the connexional complaints
panel, nor was any evidence presented when they sent him the false
confession. Rev Timms did not even have any prior notification
that such a charge had been made against him, never mind that it had been
processed. Such are the procedures of a "Star Chamber".
This highly questionable behaviour has been supported by senior
members of the Church. Nothing in the system of management placed any curb
on the Star Chamber proceedings. It was as if senior management
accepted that such obvious failings in management were quite acceptable.
The Church's safeguarding system found no fault in the process.
One can safely conclude that such abject failures in
safeguarding were not mentioned in the Methodist Church's
report to the Charity Commission in January 2021.
The
Timms case also demonstrates that the Methodist Church
has no real means of challenging irregular procedures during a complaints
inquiry. This is the consequence, as mentioned in the Church of England petition,
of all power lying in the hands of a few people and a lack of a
"conflicts of interest" policy.
Any
objection to procedure will necessarily involve the Connexional
Complaints Officer, the Legal Adviser and the Secretary of Conference.
These two latter individuals occupy the posts of Chair and the Secretary of
the influential Law and Polity Committee which writes and interprets the
rules of procedure in the Church. There is a clear conflict of interest in
this arrangement.
LOUISE WILKINS FORMER
SENIOR LEGAL OFFICER
The
Charity Commission has already been told by the Methodist Church
that safeguarding cannot rely upon procedures alone – it depends also on
people. It did not add that good management also depends on the
professionalism of the people who operate the procedures.
The inquiry team will discover that the
haphazard lines of responsibility in the management of the Methodist Church are clearly shown in
a letter to Rev Timms dated 9th June 2017. It was written by
Louise Wilkins, the Conference officer for Legal and Constitutional
practice, and a member of the influential Law and Polity Committee.
The first three paragraphs of this letter
illustrate the complexities of the safeguarding system when a complainant
wishes to object to procedures being used by a connexional
complaints panel of inquiry.
Ms
Wilkins is an extremely competent solicitor, but
even she has trouble in explaining the complications of the Church's
standing orders.
The
letter shows that there is no clear line
of responsibility or control in the Executive. It mentions the
impossibility of appealing a decision - and the fact that Standing Order
1155 (Complaints about the Process) is not applicable to Rev
Timms' particular complaints about the process. She can find
no system of due process to deal with the irregular behaviour of the
Connexional panel of inquiry. All she can find to offer Rev Timms is some
form of reconciliation - a procedure which would not entail any decision on
the justice or merits of the connexional team's actions - and which would
leave their damning report in place, accepted by the Church.
No doubt professionally embarrassed by all this, Ms Wilkins
significantly fails to mention a key clause in the standing orders -
SO 1100 (3 vii):
"There should be a means of
correcting any errors which may be made."
The Charity Commission team might
wonder how this omission came about.
One surprising aspect of the lack of professionalism in the
Methodist executive is revealed when Ms Wilkins' letter
explains how the Head of the Complaints Section, who chooses the members of
any complaint inquiry, has no means of controlling or even dismissing
any member of the team he has chosen. He may "hire", but not
he may not "fire". As Louise Wilkins puts it - he may simply
"administer the process and offer guidance on
procedure."
Once again, the Charity Commission will note the similarity of the
Methodist Church's unprofessional procedures
with those outlined in the petition against the Church of England.
Anyone complaining of procedure at connexional level in the Methodist Church may come up against a
selective use of arbitrary, unaccountable, power. The Methodist Church,
which is supposed to be the most democratic of English Churches, has
a system which concentrates effective control of process in the
hands of a very few people. And those few people may find themselves on
both sides in any dispute about procedure or the interpretation of standing
orders.
The discretions used by the senior executives in Methodist
Church House during the Timms case were all used to favour the arguments of
the senior managers and agents of the Connexion. They used their own
interpretation of procedures in order to counter objections by Rev
Timms. His rights as an individual were sacrificed on the altar of the
reputation of the Church executive.
Further, no matter where Rev Timms took
his objections to the procedures used against him, he was taking his
complaint to an officer whose own reputation depended on the outcome.
His objections included charges that the standing orders were
demonstrably inadequate, confusing, and were not being applied
consistently, fairly, or impartially. These allegations were sometimes made
to people who had had a hand in drafting the standing orders which were
being criticised. They were unlikely to criticise their own work and
that of their friends. It is no surprise that none of Peter Timms'
criticisms of the standing orders were ever investigated.
A further prime cause of disquiet in the Methodist Church,
which the Charity Commission may quickly pick up on, is the fact that the
connexional complaints panels are bodies that function as quasi-judicial
adversarial proceedings - but without the requisite checks and
balances of due process. They may easily fail all tests of natural justice,
particularly because they tend to prioritise, without scrutiny or
opposition, the reputation of the Church above all - including
generally accepted standards of fairness.
This is not a professional approach. It results from the way in
which the Methodist
Church is run by
ministers who may have no professional qualifications for the post that
they hold. The Charity Commission may require further
assurances about the professionalism of managers in the Methodist Church
and commitments that they will operate wholly within the law.
The question of
professional management in English Churches and the law was recently raised
at a hearing conducted by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex
Abuse. This is the same inquiry to which the Methodist Church
submitted evidence, confessing to major breaches of the law -
including covering up crimes.
The Chair at one
seminar, the distinguished lawyer Riel Karmy-Jones, quoted the opinion of a
man who had just been awarded the "Canterbury Cross for Services to
the Church of England". He had been a major whistle-blower of Church
of England secrets.
His general summary of the current situation was that:
"Institutions like the church can't be
relied on to police themselves."
To
which Ms Karmy-Jones remarked:
"the
question remains as to where they fit into the idea of professionals”
The Timms case will give the Charity Commission a good example of
how injustice is the consequence of such unprofessional behaviour.
The connexional panel
which inquired into his original complaints claimed
to be using the system
of the balance of probabilities - yet they had their own idiosyncratic,
even amateurish, version of what that system of judgement required.
What was particularly disturbing about
this was that the leader of the panel, the magistrate, Mr.
Chris Kitchin, should have been well aware of the system of the
balance of probabilities. His actions suggested that he did not.
But then - the person who chose him for
the post, Rev Alan Bolton had no legal or judicial qualifications either.
He was in no position to assess Mr. Kitchin's interpretation of the rules
of the system.
The complainant, Rev Timms, was a former
Prison Governor. He seemed to know more about the system than the leader of
the connexional panel. He had often used it in his professional career.
The reality of the systems of safeguarding and complaints
in such circumstances is shown by what occurred in this matter
of the balance of probabilities. Ignorance in management was covered
up.
This was bad enough, but the matter became worse when the officers
in the Connexion who dealt with the Timms case actually, because of their
ignorance, committed breaches of the Church’s own standing orders
- which were designed to ensure procedural fairness.
Nevertheless, despite this, the
reality of the system meant that these officers escaped criticism. Their
unprofessional actions were covered up by secrecy; they hid
behind the prevailing reluctance in Methodist Church House to acknowledge
error.
This imposition of secrecy and a reluctance to admit to errors is
at the heart of the Timms case. For the past two years, Rev Timms has
faced serious disciplinary charges because, it is claimed, he breached the
confidentiality of the complaints procedures. He was, it is alleged, a
“whistle blower”. The disciplinary panel should look to their rules and
definitions.
The Methodist
Church actually has
its own policy with regard to whistleblowers. It is contained in the
Church's response to the “Compliance with the Public Interest Act"
of 1998. It states:
“Staff members should feel confident about taking
the steps to disclose information.”
and:
“ The Methodist Council is committed to creating a climate of trust and
openness, so that a person who has a genuine concern or suspicion can raise
the matter with full confidence that it will be appropriately considered
and resolved.”
The Methodist Council established its own
code of practice to provide, it claimed, a framework:
“to allow concerns to be raised in confidence and, to allow for a
thorough and appropriate investigation of the matter.”
The reality of this whistle-blowing procedure is that the entire
policy is framed in order to keep information from “whistle blowers” inside
the Church , and under the control of, the Church authorities.
In short, it is
designed to shut the whistle blower up!
Where is the element of “Public Interest”
in such a system? Does the British public not have an interest in the
moral integrity of the Methodist
Church?
Why should anyone take offence when a whistle blower reveals
such egregious details as we find in Timms case? Are members of
the Methodist
Church not interested
in the truth?
Do they not care to know when one of their own, Rev Peter
Timms, was dealt with so outrageously – with false charges made
against him - simply because he complained about the
actions of three ministers in his area?
Do they not care to know that threats were used to force him to
submit to the will of the malefactors who opposed him? Do they not
care that he was accused of criminality when all such defamatory
allegations were actually false? Should the Church not take action
against persons
who make wild accusations of criminal activity when conducting a
campaign of harassment against one of its ministers?
Does no one care that those who support Peter Timms and have
examined his case in detail have come to the conclusion that the true
source of this vilification was that his complaints threatened to lead to
the exposure of a vile sex
abuse case which had been hushed up?
A part of the Methodist
Church’s whistle blowing policy that some prefer to forget is:
“The Government encourages
whistleblowers to contact external groups where appropriate.”
The present author and
webmaster of this site, Peter Hill, acted as secretary to Rev Timms when he
was seriously ill, during the period when the connexional panel considered
his complaints. He has since publicised the treatment that Rev Timms
received at the hands of the officials in Methodist Church House. He has
done so because he considers such treatment unjust and not worthy of the Methodist Church. He is the
whistle-blower in this case - not Rev Timms. Indeed, no member of
the Methodist
Church could do what
he, as a non-member, has been able to do.
Although the Government
encourages whistleblowers to contact external groups, the Methodist Church
does not. It has resorted to laying criminal
charges against Peter Hill in an attempt to close the website down.
The chances of any member of the Church
achieving anything by using the whistle-blowing policy can be judged by
looking at what Rev Timms experienced when he actually used that policy.
LORAINE MELLOR former
President of Methodist Conference
In 2017, Rev Timms wrote, in accordance with the “whistle blower" policy, to
the President of Conference, Loraine Mellor. He informed her of the many
misdemeanours committed by various executives in the Church. He ended with
a heartfelt plea:
“The Church cannot survive if false
confessions can be sent to ministers with threats designed to persuade them
to sign them. The Church cannot survive if panels of inquiry can lie to
complainants. The church cannot survive if anyone who complains is
immediately investigated, even spied upon, without being even able to
defend themselves before being found guilty.
The Church cannot
survive if such things are hushed up.”
This plea was ignored. He
asked to meet the President - she refused the request.
It was of course Rev Loraine
Mellor who, as President, told Peter Timms:
"It
is clear to me that the process which you initiated was followed within the
parameters set down by Conference."
The Timms case may be
the exception rather than the rule. It may be the consequence of a clash of
personalities. However, the safeguarding system in the Methodist Church
should be flexible enough to consider even the exceptional cases.
With Peter Timms this is clearly not the case.
The current investigation by the Charity Commission comes after
intensive work by the Church following the “Review of Past Cases” of
sex abuse in the Church. This report by Jane Stacey, published in 2015,
exposed almost 2,000 cases of abuse that had surfaced during its
inquiries. The areas for the necessary reform of the Church’s safeguarding
policies were deduced from the conclusions of that report.
JANE STACEY - SEX
ABUSE REPORT
Jane Stacey revealed institutional
weakness in the complaints system which should have been corrected.
Although her review was regarded as being primarily concerning sex abuse,
its remit included “any other abuse of a vulnerable adult -
financial, institutional" Subsequent reforms in the light of
the review should have solved the problems with the abuse of process which
Rev Timms suffered.
In general, Jane Stacey was concerned with poor professional
practices which resulted from the institutional structure of the Church,
its policies - and the processes and practices within it. The
conclusions therefore applied to all cases of abuse in the Church.
The objective was:
“to review the Church’s historical response in each identified
safeguarding case in order to ensure that responses across the Connexion
have been safe, compliant with legislation and policy (both state and
church) pastorally appropriate.”
In her
report, Jane Stacey called for a:
“culture change in the Church and more robust
accountability structures".
A key question for Jane Stacey's team was - how far does the
practice of the Methodist
Church match its
intentions and public statements?
Jane Stacey concluded
that a key objective must be
"follow-up" - a need to ensure that lessons were learned
about the changes that were necessary.
Such an assessment could only be done some
years after changes were introduced. And that is perhaps why the
current inquiry has begun.
So the key question for the Charity
Commission might now be "How far does the practice of the Methodist Church now match its intentions
and public statements?"
The Stacey
review began in 2013 and reported in 2015. The Timms case began locally
in 2014, but went to the national level in 2016. And those arguments are
still going on.
It would therefore seem that examination of the Timms case might
well provide a good test of how far the Church’s practices match its
intentions and public statements in the light of the review’s findings.
One of the key faults that Jane Stacey noted was that the culture
inside the Church was made unsafe not only by those who broke the
rules, but by the subsequent actions of those in authority.
In other words, malefactors were defended by their superiors and their
mistakes and misdemeanours covered-up. Inadequate procedure was followed by
inadequate response.
Considering that such appears to have occurred in the Timms case,
the Charity Commission may be able to assess just how much the
review’s findings influenced the culture inside the Church. Did systems for
dealing with abuse improve?
Readers of this website may conclude that such a culture had
a devastating effect on the Timms case - and that it is
still occurring. .
The Stacey
report also raised questions about the issue of visible leadership.
It concluded that in far too many cases Superintendents, and District
Chairs, did not take seriously enough those people who were raising
concerns. They did not listen and did not take robust enough action. Has
that changed since 2015?
Not in the Timms case. For a long
period, Peter Timms' District Chair, Rev John Hellyer, would not even
speak to him. When they finally met, John Hellyer did not take seriously
Timms' allegations about the false
confession. In fact, when Peter Timms tried to show John Hellyer the incriminating
document, Hellyer pushed it away. He said that he was not
prepared to answer questions about it. He took no action to help Rev Timms - instead, he suspended
him from all church activities.
This is exactly the type of situation that Jane Stacey noted in
her report.
The Stacey report also stated that, because of such weaknesses in
structure and accountability, a significant number of situations were
not picked up and dealt with at an early stage. Instead, they were
allowed to progress to formal complaints and discipline processes.
It was when the Timms case went to national level that it really
began to go wrong; but it had gone to that level because Rev Timms
was unable to persuade any of the ministers he complained about to enter
any process of reconciliation. They effectively forced him to go to the
connexional level.
Jane Stacey also wrote:
“potential bullying behaviour, non compliance with
policies, etc would be expected to be dealt with through the normal supervisory
process.”
This kind of hectoring is the type of institutional abuse
mentioned in the Stacey report as being behind the recommendation that:
“work (should) be undertaken to develop further best practice
guidance including, but not limited to, guidance on appropriate
communication with complainants and respondents; guidance on the choice
of venues for meetings and hearings; and guidance on questioning
of complainants and respondents.”
This is a clear
expression of the hope that more professional procedures would be
introduced. The lesson does not appear to have been learned in time to save
Peter Timms. Let us now consider the role of Mr. Chris Kitchin, the leader
of the Connexional panel of inquiry that dealt with Peter Timms' case.
CHRIS KITCHIN PANEL
LEADER
Chris Kitchin was chosen to lead the complaints panel on the Timms
case in August 2016. Considering the responsibility of the role, he must
have already read a copy of the Stacey report. What did he make of the call
for:
"appropriate communication with complainants"
Not much, it would seem, for within weeks of the report coming
out, he sent a complainant a false
confession to sign. Was this an 'appropriate
communication' with a complainant?
Considering such evidence, the current
inquiry by the Charity Commission may conclude that the very same errors
of institutional abuse that Jane Stacey found in the first half of
the decade are being replicated in the second half - for the Timms case has
now spanned that period.
The question for the Charity Commission
may come down to whether the Church has adhered to the commitments it made
- both at registration and after the Stacey review.
The Church committed itself to
address the cultural changes that Jane Stacey noted as necessary -
and to introduce more robust accountability structures that the Stacey
report mentioned. It is difficult to see any sign of this in the case
of Peter Timms.
Ultimately, the Charity Commission will need to look at the “public benefit”
that the Methodist
Church claimed for
itself on its registration as a charity. The Timms case may provide a
“litmus test” in such a consideration.
The Charity Commission's files list the
"public benefit” of the Methodist
Church as being:
‘the advancement of the Christian faith
in accordance with the doctrinal standards and the discipline of the Methodist Church’.
This is the standard against which the
inquiry will measure, in particular, the Constitutional Practice and
Discipline of the Methodist
Church.
And
the question will be, no matter how exhaustive the system is, no matter how
well-written it is - does it deliver?
Or does it perhaps rely on amateurish
procedures – without due consideration for the people involved in the
procedures?
Rev. JONATHAN HUSTLER
SECRETARY TO CONFERENCE
This problem has been on the desk of Rev Jonathan Hustler for more
than sixty days. That is not long for a Charity Commission inquiry.
However, if Rev Hustler does not act quickly to settle the
Timms case, he could find himself facing difficult questions from the
Charity Commission. The Commission rarely looks at individual cases, but
the evidence of the institutional cover-up in the Timms case reflects on
the entire system of safeguarding.
The way in which the Timms case contrasts so starkly with the
fervent promises and commitments made after the sex abuse scandal, may well
suggest that the inquiry should take it into account. It reflects failing
institutional structures within the Church. The system can easily lead to
injustice rather than promoting justice. And anyone in the Church who
complains may become caught up in it.
That there is a suspicion that a cover-up
of a sex abuse case is at the heart of the attacks on Rev Timms would
only increase the Commission's interest.
The problem Jonathan Hustler faces is contained largely in the
material published on this website – the abundance of evidence that
demonstrates that the Church acted unprofessionally and incorrectly, according
to its own rules, in dealing with Rev Timms’ complaints.
Whilst the Charity Commission is looking into complaints about the
Methodist
Church’s
safeguarding system, it is also looking at accusations that the Church
of England has similar institutional safeguarding failings.
In particular, as with the Methodist Church,
the Church of England is accused of having no properly constituted
appeal or review procedures. Since the systems of the two churches are
similar, it is difficult to see that different conclusions will emerge from
the two inquiries.
Considering the Timms case, the Methodist Church
may find it hard to argue that it has adequate remedy to any abuse of
person or process. If the Timms case cannot be dealt with under Standing
Order 1103(7) –
“there should be a means of correcting any errors which
may be made”
then it is difficult to point to any adequate remedy to
abuse of practice in the rules of the Methodist Church.
THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT.
Perhaps the most serious consideration in both the Charity
Commission's inquiries concerns the assumption on the part of many that the
rules of the Church can abrogate a person's rights under the Human Rights
Act.
The letter of complaint from members of the Church of England
states:
"When
unfairness and breaches of principles of natural justice and human rights
legislation have been brought to the attention of those charged with the
responsibility to manage fair and proper process, there has been a refusal
to set aside bad process and a prioritisation of “saving face” rather than
a willingness to rectify error and restore proper process."
This claim is reflected in the Timms case - with greater clarity of
how the Methodist
Church thinks.
It may surprise readers to learn that the Methodist Church
claims to itself the interpretation of the Human
Rights Act .
In a letter dated 1st October 2016, Rev
Timms was told that the Human Rights Act could not be relied upon in his
dispute. The leader of the connexional complaints panel wrote:
"The
Act does not therefore apply; nevertheless the principles of Article 6 are
reflected in Part 11 Standing Order 1102 (1)."
By claiming that standing order 1102 reflects the Human Rights
Act, the Methodist
Church seeks to take
away from its members some inalienable rights. The Church considers
that the human rights of a member of the Church in internal dealings of the
Church are what the Methodist Council decides that they are. And
that applies to the complaints system as much as anywhere else in the
Church.
The Church claims that the complaints system is not a judicial
process and that such rights as might be a part of a judicial process
elsewhere are not a part of the system.
If this is so - one must ask why the case of Rev Timms was
conducted under the rules of "the balance of probabilities"
- a well-established judicial process? And was there no
judicial process in the preparation of the issuance of the false
confession? Or do Star Chambers not have a judicial process?
Another argument is that the Human Rights Act does not actually
apply, in law, to the Methodist
Church at all. As Mr.
Chris Kitchin put in the same letter to Rev Timms:
"The
Act relates to public bodies of which the Methodist Church is not
one."
This avoids the argument that the Church is subject to Parliament
under the Methodist Act - and any interpretation of the clauses of that Act
must be aligned with the Human Rights Act. So the Church must act in
accordance with the terms of human rights legislation and practice.
The Human Rights Act applies mainly to trials - but it is also
applied to all types of tribunal. It has precedents in the judgments
of the courts which can be referred to in all such hearings of
disputes.
For example, precedent and judges' rulings have established that
people have the right to:
·
be presumed innocent until they are proven
guilty
·
be told as early as possible what they are accused of
·
remain silent
·
have enough time to prepare their case
·
legal aid (funding) for a lawyer if they cannot afford
one and this is needed for justice to be served
·
attend their trial
·
access all the relevant information
·
put forward their side of the case at trial
·
question the main witness against them and call other
witnesses, and
These particular rulings on what constitutes everyone's human
rights are not contained in Standing
Order 1102, nor in any other standing order mentioned in the relevant
clause. This is where the danger of a breach of human rights lies.
The Charity Commission may find that the Methodist Church's
"reflection" of the Human Rights Act does not adequately grant to
its members all the rights in the Human Rights Act. It may
"reflect" those rights to some extent, but it is no real
substitute.
Several of the above rights contained in our Human Rights legislation
were denied to Rev Timms during the Connexional complaints inquiry
procedures, and may be denied to others in the future.
The problem in this lies in the unprofessional wording of the
standing orders. The word "fairness" is the essential element of
the Methodist
Church's rules. But
who is to decide what is "fair"?
The Church's solution to this question is a small list of arbiters.
In the Timms case, the arbiter was the leader of the complaints panel - Mr.
Chris Kitchin. He considered that his actions were "fair" - and
he was supported by the two
ministers on the complaints panel. Later, his view of fairness was
supported by the entire executive of the Methodist Church.
This small group, at the most half a dozen people, held Rev
Peter Timms' human rights in their hands. Those six or so people decided
that Rev Timms was not to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty; he was not to be told as early as possible what he was
accused of; he was not to be allowed enough time to prepare
his case; he was not to have access to all the relevant
information.
This is how the Human Rights Act is
reflected in Standing Order 1102 (1). And that, according to a member
of the small core group inside the Methodist Church,
is "fair". One cannot imagine that any definition of
"fairness" in such consideration of a dispute could be acceptable
to the Charity Commission.
There is a greater problem with this
aspect of the Timms case - what happened to him sets a very dangerous
precedent.
Whilst the complaints and discipline
procedures continue to be operated by a small "core
group", the practice of sending out false
confessions will continue to be adjudged to be "fair". It is
an extremely dangerous precedent.
The Charity Commission will no doubt discover that the case of Peter
Timms is not the only case in which such a false confession has been issued
to a complainant.
Will issuing false confessions therefore become standard practice?
One might laugh at the idea - but if the Methodist Council thinks that such
a practice is "fair" why should executives not continue to use
it?
The
fact that such power is in the hands of so few also raises the question of
whether the Methodist
Church has any real
‘conflicts of interest’ policy. The Church of England is accused
having no comprehensive policy on conflicts of interest. The Charity
Commission might come to think that the same applies to the Methodist Church.
In the
Timms case, there was a potential conflict of interest in the position of
the Church's senior legal adviser, Louise Wilkins, which the system
had no answer to. It left Ms Wilkins in an invidious position.
Ms
Wilkins was the senior legal adviser to the then Secretary to
Conference, Rev Gareth Powell. Rev Powell rejected all Rev Timms'
objections to the procedures employed against him. However, Rev Alan Bolton, the man in charge of the complaints system had
told Rev Timms that he might use SO 1155 "Complaints about
Process."
Peter Timms hoped that the Legal Adviser to the Conference might give
him a clear interpretation of Standing Order 1155. So he approached Louise
Wilkins.
Ms. Wilkins considered that Rev Timms
could not use SO 1155 - Complaints about the Process. In
a letter
dated 9th June 2017, she explained why and suggested he use a
reconciliation process. It was a process that Rev Timms had already
rejected because it did not offer any means of correcting the many
misdemeanours of the connexional complaints panel.
However, at that time, Louise Wilkins, was
also sitting on the Law and Polity Committee. Rev Gareth Powell sat
on that committee too. They and the other members were responsible for
writing the standing orders of the Church and interpreting them.
So Louise Wilkins was working for, and with, the man who had
already told Peter Timms he could not appeal. Could she possibly have
opposed his views? As a lawyer, she was employed to defend him - and
the Church - against all such opposition.
It was an ethical position that many lawyers find themselves in. Even
if Ms Wilkins had considered that Peter Timms' view might be correct, her
professional responsibility was to defend her employer - the Church.
This may be why the logic of her letter
dated 9th June 2017 is so difficult to follow. It may also
explain why Rev Alan Bolton, the Head of the Complaints section, had given
Rev Timms such contrary advice only a few weeks earlier. With
hindsight, one might conclude that Louise Wilkins was expertly
casting the cloak of a reconciliation procedure over the awkward fact that
a complaint about process was not to be advanced.
How else can we explain why SO 1155 is for "Complaints
against Process" - unless, of course, it is that awkward man,
Rev Peter Timms, who is complaining against process?
Diverting
attention is a common tactic used by lawyers who wish to cover up awkward
truths. An expert and competent lawyer such as Louise Wilkins would
surely have encountered the tactic during her distinguished career. The
conflict of interest she found herself in may have meant that, in one way
or the other, she would need to be less than transparent in her views to
one side or the other. As one person, who knows Methodist Church House
politics well, remarked - Louise was having a bad day when she wrote
that letter.
Openness or
transparency is an issue for the Charity Commission to consider - particularly because it has received the two
separate petitions suggesting that neither the Church of England, nor
the Methodist Church has been open about what reforms they have made
concerning safeguarding against abuse.
This is not surprising, when both churches
stand accused in the separate petitions of secrecy - coupled
with a reluctance to acknowledge error when senior managers have breached
the rules.
Five years ago, both churches promised to reform their
systems. Yet both churches are still accused of allowing partiality,
privilege and reputational management to take precedence over due process
and proper standards in the complaints system.
The Charity Commission is faced with a quandary which may affect
its final conclusions. Two of the nation's major churches have
suffered serious loss of followers in recent decades. Neither will wish to
be publicly censured for such misdemeanours as are listed above.
They will therefore press the Commission to give them more time. They will promise to be more professional in future.
The Methodist Church
will no doubt repeat its claims that its aim in
safeguarding is to create a culture of informed vigilance at all levels
in the Church. Such vigilance would hopefully eliminate all forms
of abuse within the Church.
At the moment, the practicality of this policy appears to be that
the vigilance is directed in one direction only. There
is no informed vigilance over of senior management. Those who control and
operate the policies of the Church do not come under scrutiny.
Worse, on occasions, the objective of such
a policy of vigilance even appears to have been turned onto its head. The
powers and discretions it grants allow it to be used as a means of control.
Informed vigilance should lead to openness and justice. Yet at the moment
it may lead to secrecy and inequity.
There has, for example, been zero
vigilance over the actions taken by members of the connexional team who
treated Rev Peter Timms so badly. Persons such as Mr. Chris Kitchin are
placed in positions of power where they may exercise those powers and
interpret the rules as if on a whim.
The final report of the Connexional
complaints panel, which dealt with Peter Timms affair, requested punishment
for what what the panel considered to be abuse of procedure by Peter Timms.
They wished to force him to submit to the will of the Church, regardless of
the truth of the matter. That was the final turn of the screw.
In such circumstances, power lies in the procedures
and the powers that they grant to the officials involved - not in the
people that they are designed to protect.
Peter Timms has been objecting for half a
decade to the procedures used against him - such as the coercion that
was applied on him to persuade him to sign the false confession. His
words have fallen on deaf ears. There is no right of appeal against such
unjust procedures.
--00--
If you
have evidence which you believe should be drawn to the attention of the
Charity Commission, email to:
RCCorres1@charitycommission.gov.uk
addressing your email to Mr. Garry Fraser in the Regulatory
Compliance office.
TO RETURN TO HOME PRESS THE
BACK BUTTON ON YOUR BROWSER
|