Central
to the system of complaints in the Methodist Church is
S.O.
1133(8c):
“The
standard of proof required to establish a charge is the balance of
probability.”
However, this is not further defined and is often mis-interpreted.
It
is important to note that since the Methodist Church does not further define
this system, then the definition must be as it is used in civil law case outside
the Methodist Church. After all, most of the Standing Orders are written by
senior lawyers – and, in the main, lawyers working in civil law where the system
is most used.
As for
the layman, the Standing Order may not necessarily be the best reference for the
working of the system of the balance of probabilities, but, inside the Church,
it is all that we have.
Recent
decisions by the Connexional Complaints panel have gone along with this
definition:
The
complaints team has to be convinced that the complaint is 51% likely to be true;
that is, the complainants’ story only had to be slightly more plausible than the
respondent’s story. Expressed another way, the complainant’s case would need to
be accepted as more likely than not to be true for the complaint to succeed;
that it is more probably than not.”
However,
this is a shorthand – and inadequate - definition of the system of “balance of
probabilities”.
In
particular it fails to point out that decisions may not be made subjectively
without forensic examination and assessment. The quotation quotes the
percentage of 51%, but demonstrates no attempt of how to measure probability
so as to achieve this percentage.
This
standard of proof is not defined further in the Standing Orders. The lawyers who
wrote the Standing Order would take it for granted that such forensic
investigation work would be required to establish a balance of probabilities.
The system is well known in law. It is used in civil courts. Why would anyone
need to write it into Standing Orders?
Many
connexional inquiry panel members may be surprised to learn that the phrase
“balance of probabilities” does not mean that the judge may decide what is
probably the truth on a whim or a hunch .
Unfortunately, that is what seems to occur in some cases within the Methodist
Church.
The
panel quoted above states that it “had to be convinced”. In fact the true
position is that the panel needs to work in order to convince itself.
The two
statements may seem to mean the same thing, but they do not, for one of the
essentials of the “balance of probabilities” system is that the judge may – and
indeed should – take evidence from other, often outside, sources.
In the
end the onus is on the judge to weigh the two sides – and this requires
measurement and judicial assessment.
There are rules and principles involved in the “balance of probabilities”.
The balance of the arguments put must be carefully considered and interrogated
forensically.
It is
clear from some cases that most Methodist Church Connexional panels have little
more than a layman’s view of the rules qualifying the system of judgement on the
balance of probabilities. This was one of the core reasons why some complainants
get upset.
As with
the system of “beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal law, in the system of
“balance of probabilities” there must be a desire to find “best evidence”. This
is required in order to achieve the best measure of the “balance of
probabilities”. We shall see that some Standing Orders appear to be in direct
conflict with this.
“Best
evidence” may be documentary or forensic evidence – and such will generally
out-weigh verbal evidence in the “balance of probabilities.”
If,
after reviewing documentary evidence and such, the tribunal is still left in
doubt, the question is resolved by a rule that the asserting party carries
the burden of proof. This means that the complainant has to prove his
case.
There
is no position of “reasonable doubt” with the system of “balance of
probabilities” as some may think.. The fact that a complainant or accuser has
provided evidence, but not sufficient evidence, to give his case the
greater probability, does not leave any lurking doubt over the accused.
It is a “black and white” situation, there are no ‘greys’.
The
probability of both sides must be considered.
Probabilities are measured. The more improbable the event, the
stronger the evidence must be to substantiate it.
The
more probable the event might be, the required evidence to substantiate it
is less.
So how
do we measure what is “probable”? A well-known example of this rule is told to
students by way of an anecdote.
A man
runs into a pub and shouts that there is a lion loose in Regent’s Park. It’s in
the public area where children are playing. He calls for someone to phone the
police or the RSPCA.
Another
man who has just ordered a drink at the bar turns and says “ I saw that animal –
it was a large Alsation dog, not a lion”.
The
publican, hand on phone, pauses – does he call the police or not – which story
is the more probable? An argument ensues.
The
publican remarks that lions are rarely seen walking around our parks. And yet
there certainly are lions in Regent’s Park – in the zoo.
But, on
the other hand, even in Regent’s Park Zoo, they are locked away in cages. And,
of course, there are keepers at the Zoo whose job it is to ensure that they do
not get out and run loose.
So, the
publican thinks, the probability that a lion is walking around in the public
areas is low. But it cannot be zero probability. After all, there are
lions in Regent’s Park.
He
considers what research might be undertaken before committing himself.
Why not
ring the zoo are ask whether or not a lion has escaped? A little investigation
might settle this. Perhaps if they counted their lions, that might help….. After
all, one might have escaped. But what if that has happened? Those lions
are reasonably tame – and there is still, perhaps, a probability that the lion
would stay away from public areas for fear of being caught.
To
raise that probability level of a lion being loose would require more evidence –
and strong evidence. The publican decided to phone the Zoo before calling
the Police and the RSPCA.
Whilst
he was waiting for a reply from the zoo, he thought - how many Alsatians does
one find in Regents Park?
A quick
investigation might show that there are many Alsatian owners who regularly walk
their dogs in the park. This is high probability and requires less evidence to
support it.
So, on
balance, high probability that it was an Alsatian – low probability it was a
lion.
Unless
the call to the zoo suggests otherwise, because more evidence on that side of
the argument might increase the probability that it was a lion. Perhaps they
have lost a lion, or maybe they are transporting one to Whipsnade, and it might
have escaped without their knowledge.
This is
why research and investigation is needed in cases which are judged on the
“balance of probabilities”.
So,
there is a recognised system on how probabilities are weighed and measured.
Judges in the above homily would wish to hear strong evidence (from the
zoo) before raising the level of probability that the creature was a Lion. That
was the accusation, or complaint, so it requires strong evidence.
Best
evidence is the
essential element. The strong forensic evidence of a photograph of a lion
roaming the park could establish the measure of probability. Counting the lions
in the zoo would also help.
The key
point is that the balance of probabilities is not reached on a hunch – nor on
the experience of the judge who simply looks at initial statements in a case.
The
likelihood of facts must be investigated.
Probability must be forensically measured. It is a scientific
approach, because the judgement is based on established facts.
There
is nothing of this in Standing Orders. And, in spite of training, there appears
to be no such measurement of probabilities in the considerations of some
connexional panels in the complaints process. They tend to work on the basis of
what “is more likely” or “more plausible”. This is a
subjective approach.
Panels
tend to begin with the view that the respondents are right – and that the
complainant must prove 51% that he is right. After all a man is innocent until
proved guilty isn’t he? That is not how the system works.
The
procedure begins with equal probability or improbability on both sides; the
judges then measure evidence, and assess the balance.
So, the
three sources of evidence, verbal, documentary and the results of forensic
investigation by the panel, must be brought together as completely as possible
before they even begin to assess the evidence to lead to a conclusion.
This
applies equally to the initial investigation of the complaint, as to the main
investigation of the complaint.
(This aspect is considered
elsewhere on this website, in an article about the initial investigation)
This
procedure is the only one with which SO 1133(8c):
“The
standard of proof required to establish a charge is the balance of probability.”
may
be followed if it is to be within the over-arching principles of justice and
honesty set out in S.O. 1100(2).
The
probability of both sides must be investigated and considered.
CASE
STUDY I
In a
recent case, a supernumerary minister complained about a minor affair in his
district. He spoke with an Acting District Chair, who then reported, when the
complaint went to a connexional complaints panel, that the minister had, in
fact, demanded a post as Superintendent during that conversation. The minister
involved was in his eighties.
The
rules on probability, as in the “lion example” above, are particularly
applicable in this case. An accusation was raised , how was it to be judged by
the inquiry panel?
The
minister argued that if he had been a thirty year old man, this idea might be
probable.
But is
it probable in the case of an eighty year old man? He had recently been taken
into hospital and had a heart pacemaker fitted – did he, or indeed anyone,
really think that he was he fit enough to do the job of Superintendent?
For the
accusation ( note - from a respondent) that he had demanded the job to be judged
probable, very strong evidence would be required.
The
minister noted that, apart from the Acting Chair’s allegation, there was only
one piece of evidence.
He
pointed to a letter in evidence which the inquiry had received from a friend of
the Acting District Chair. He quoted the key line:
“The
complainant then presented a paper which proposed his own immediate appointment
as acting superintendent.”
The
minister pointed out that the basis of this statement appeared to be an even
earlier letter from a Church Steward, which, in turn, detailed yet
another letter which was actually written by another friend of the Acting
District Chair – who had nothing at all to do with the argument. This was the
apparent source of the idea.
He
pointed out that the inquiry panel appeared to have made no attempt to see the
original document, which was clearly the best evidence and which would
have supported the probability one way or the other.
“Chinese Whispers” had changed the content and emphasis of the original – but
how could the panel know this, unless the first letter in this trail of letters
was not produced?
In fact
the minister who was supposed to have demanded the job claimed that he had, in
reality, suggested that, if the Church was in difficulties - because the
current Superintendent was seriously ill - he, though a supernumerary, might
step into the breach for a few weeks, because he had a lot of experience of the
job and because it was a relatively quiet time of the year.
This
example – a true story - illustrates that, in measuring on the basis of
probabilities, the further from “best evidence” that the matter is, the
less reliable is the measure of probability. The less probable the matter is,
the stronger the evidence must be to support it.
Step
back from the argument for a moment - would an eighty year old supernumerary
really demand to be made a Superintendent?
The
panel in this case actually accepted the evidence that the demand had been made.
It should have realised that the evidence of probability it was not strong
– because the minister involved was in his eighties.
They
should have attempted to find stronger (better) evidence to support the
allegation. Perhaps a medical report would have helped. Perhaps the
supernumerary minister had told someone else that he wanted to be a
Superintendent. Perhaps he had written the idea in a letter somewhere.
The
particular panel considering this true case made no such efforts. Their reason
may be that the person putting the claim forward was an Acting District Chair –
whereas the person he wrote about was a supernumerary minister.
In
this case, there appears to have been no attempt to assess the measure of
probability. That is contrary to S.O. 1133(8c):
“The
standard of proof required to establish a charge is the balance of probability.”
What’s
worse is that, in this particular case, the panel did not appear to be aware of
this failing in its work. But that is common in the Complaints system of the
Methodist Church, for there is no explanation in any published work of how the
system of the balance of probabilities works.
CASE
STUDY II
This
again is a real case. Another example of a lack of proper investigation occurred
when a connexional panel considered events at a District Circuit Meeting.
During
consideration of an appointment, an Acting District Chair intervened to stop
discussion. One of the speakers was opposing the appointment. The minutes
recorded:
“Rev
….. came forward waving a paper at him saying “it was an email from the District
Chair… that the present speaker was to be allowed four minutes to make any
comment about the item.”
Her
contention was that the email was from the District Chair who was seriously ill
at the time. The Connexional inquiry panel, which later considered this case,
considered that the fact of her complete justification for intervention was
“probable”.
However, there was another side to the probabilities which the panel did not
assess and measure.
(i) The
Acting District Chair would not allow the minister who was objecting to her
intervention to see the email she brandished – either at the meeting or later.
One might wonder why not, when it would have established her right to
interrupt the proceedings?
(ii)
The Acting District Chair was actually on sabbatical during this period. There
was no apparent reason why she might have been called in from that sabbatical to
make the intervention – for another Acting District Chair was actually in
charge of the matter under debate and was available.
(iii)
The Acting District Chair made no mention of this email in her response to the
grievance taken out against her about this incident. That would seem odd, for it
would be powerful evidence that the District Chair had allowed her to intervene
as she did. Why should she leave that evidence out of her response?
(iv)
The Acting District Chair later claimed that there had been an arrangement for
her to take over the chair of the Circuit meeting – yet the minutes did not
record that she did so.
These
questions raise a probability that the Acting District Chair who intervened at
the meeting was exceeding her authority in by-passing he colleagues in this
meeting. Only the email would prove the contrary – and that vanished ( if it
ever existed).
How did
that probability balance against the verbal assertion by the Acting District
Chair? We cannot know – for the panel did not work towards measuring that
balance.
In this
example, the best evidence to use in finding the balance is the
supposed email itself. In spite of repeated requests, the panel appeared to have
made no move towards locating and securing that email.
This
again demonstrates that they did not understand how they should properly make
a judgement based on the “balance of probabilities”.
There
is some further documentary evidence which might measure the balance in this
example. In her response to the grievance against her, the Acting District Chair
stated:
“What
follows is largely constructed from notes made at the meeting”
If
there were notes, those notes were “best evidence”. The panel should have
asked for them.
In
fact, due to her actions, rather than her words, at the meeting in question,
some members of the meeting began to suspect that the email she flourished was
in fact the supposed “notes”. She had no other paper with her.
The key
reason why the panel should have obtained the email is that the complaints which
they were investigating concerned the manner in which the circuit meeting was
run and recorded. The content of the supposed email was the essential element
in determining the manner in which the meeting was run.
How
many points on which probability could be measured were available to the
panel – and how many did they actually use?
It
seems that their balance of probability measure was based solely on what the
Acting District Chair said. As was once famously said in court “well, she
would say that wouldn’t she?
I do
not criticise the Acting District Chair here. That is not the point.
I
criticise the panel
– because it is quite clear that there was no desire at all to properly measure
the level of probability in this dispute. Such was their duty – and they failed
to carry it out.
They
trusted the Acting District Chair, they did not trust the lowly minister who
took out the grievance against her. That was their simplistic ‘balance of
probability’. They thought it “more likely” that she was right and the minister
was wrong. On what basis of probability was that decision taken?
PROBLEMS WITH DELAY
Another
important aspect of the balance of probabilities that is not mentioned in the
Standing Orders is delay. The balance of probabilities is influenced by
availability of evidence. The time limits enforced by Standing Orders may reduce
the ability of the panel to properly operate the system.
This is
sometimes a problem if one of the parties cannot attend a hearing for reasons of
ill-health, or does not tender proper, admissible, evidence to the hearing. If
such is because of reasonable or unavoidable delay, the judge cannot fully
consider the balance of probabilities. And that, of course, is contrary to
Standing Orders.
In
other circumstances, a judge may demand to see certain evidence, particularly
“best evidence” which is being withheld from him - if he considers such
evidence necessary to properly measure the balance of probabilities. The
alternative might be for him to abandon the case.
Occasionally, a connexional complaints panel may decide that all help should be
withheld from a complainant or a respondent. The decision would probably be
taken in the light of SO 1157 (3) which allows a connexional panel to withdraw
all help and support from someone who, it believes, has breached
confidentiality. This may well be done, even though one of the principles
behind Standing Orders, SO 1100 (3 iv), states:
“help and support should be offered
both to the person making the complaint and to the person complained against at
every stage during the process”
The
excuse that the panel will usually give for this is that such is reasonable and
that, in any case, it was “not disadvantageous” to the person involved. That of
course is what they think.
Not
only is such a use of SO 1157 (3) contrary to SO 1100 (3iv), but it means that
the whole system of the balance of probabilities is undermined. How can the
panel possibly know that the withdrawal of all help, both with advice on
procedure and the acquisition of documentation is not disadvantageous – when it
has not seen the use that the complainant or respondent plans to make of it?
The
final decision is then made without all the relevant evidence before the
panel – and this destroys the ability to operate the “balance of probabilities”
system.
This is
particularly bad if the complainant or the respondent is requesting something
that is “best evidence”.
There is clearly a conflict
between various Standing Orders here. Perhaps the most important, not mentioned
in the above is SO 1100 (3 v):
“The
process should be fair.”
It is
clear that, should there be a suspected breach of confidence, then t there
should be what in general law is called “ a trial within a trial.” The issue of
breach of confidentiality must be settled first - if the complaint being
investigated is to proceed.
Unless
this is done, a panel makes itself incapable of properly considering the
balance of probabilities.
There
is an underlying point in this that should be observed in other situations.
A
tribunal, which is working on the basis of a balance of probabilities, may not
intervene in the preparation and submission of evidence in a manner that
unjustly tilts the balance of probabilities. This clearly makes the balance of
probabilities an impossible goal.
All evidence must be considered if the balance is to be
fair and correct. In fact, the more evidence - and the stronger the evidence
- the tribunal, or panel, considers, the better chance it has of assessing
which is “best evidence” - and therefore the best measurement of the balance of
probabilities.
It is
one thing to fail to look for evidence – it is quite another to refuse to look
at certain evidence.