human rights
HUMAN
RIGHTS IN THE METHODIST CHURCH
The standing orders of the Methodist Church are
supposed to reflect the articles of the Human Rights Act. That was the
commitment made by the Methodist Church to the government to ensure that the
Church could enjoy its right to freedom of religious belief by being exempt from
the Act.
In the case of Peter Timms, the Methodist Church coerced him and eventually
carried out their threats - by removing him from the ministry. They wanted him
to sign a self-incriminating document ( a false confession) without granting
him the chance either to hear of what he had been accused and without being able
to explain his actions in his defence.
Such action does not “reflect” the Human Rights Act in any way. The Methodist
Church is therefore not fulfilling its commitment to the Government.
This
article is a précis of a much more detailed article which may be found on
this website by clicking here. Part of the longer article is to form the basis
of a report to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. For the longer version
CLICK HERE.
For a Chronology of the case ,
CLICK HERE.
--00--
The
case of Peter Timms, who was removed from the Methodist ministry in 2021,
raised the question of the role of the 1998 Human Rights Act and its relevance
to the procedures of the Methodist Church’s Complaints and Disciplinary
proceedings.
In law,
the Methodist Church is a “hybrid public authority” under the terms of
the Human Rights Act. The Church is under statutory regulation for some of its
activities, but exempt from other regulations.
In 1998
Home Secretary Jack Straw outlined the general situation to a House of Commons
Committee:
“Much
of what the Churches do is, in the legal context and in the context of the
European Convention on human rights, essentially private in nature, and would
not be affected by the Bill”
However, the government left the decision on what were “private
matters”
to a case-by-case consideration.
“We…believe that
the test must relate to the substance and nature of the act…”
(Hansard col 433)
Mr.
Chris Kitchin, the leader of the complaints panel investigating Peter Timms’
complaints about favouritism in Bexhill, told Timms that “the HRA does not
apply” to the case. He was supported in this, first by the outgoing
Secretary to Conference, Gareth Powell - and then by his successor, Jonathan
Hustler.
That,
it must be presumed, is the policy of the Methodist Church.
Whilst expounding this policy, Mr.
Kitchin’s added that the standing orders of the Church “reflected” the Human
Rights Act. This may refer to the guiding principle, SO 1100:
“all human beings are made in the image of God and
are entitled to be treated as such”
or to a second
“guiding
principle” which reads:
“The
Church also responds to the call through Christ for justice, openness and
honesty,”
Mr
Kitchin seems to have been referring to the official guidelines
to the standing
orders which state:
“(European) Convention rights do not apply to the Church’s procedures for
dealing with complaints and discipline.........However, it would be good
practice to take full account of those rights when dealing with a complaint or
charge.”
The
Church’s Safeguarding principles appear to go a step further. They
mention the
UK Human Rights Act specifically:
“the Methodist Church is
guided by the following foundations:
a) the gospel b) human
rights, international and national law”
These
pronouncements are qualified by an important legal precedent in civil and
ecclesiastical law which was established in 2003 in the House of Lords. Their
Lordships pointed out that there is a:
“statutory aim of promoting
the observance of human rights values”
Ensuring that the Church observes “human rights values” means that there must be
transparency or openness in the Church’s dealings. This is required by SO 1100
which demands of all members:
“justice,
openness and honesty,”
However, a Standing Order of the Church - SO 1104 (7)
- enforces
confidentiality in Church matters. Pastoral care often requires such
confidentiality and such are legitimate “private matters”. However, with
SO 1104 (7) the Church has extended this to specifically cover cases involving
complaints and discipline.
This
extension of privacy means that the process of considering complaints within the
Church are considered to be “private matters”. This makes such matters
potentially free from the restraints of the Human Rights Act – since no one can
know if any Article of that Act had been breached.
The privacy imposed by SO 1104 (7) is also supposed to protect the human
dignity of both the complainant and the respondent involved in a dispute.
However, as SO 1104 (7) is currently interpreted by the Methodist Church, it
actually allows members of a connexional panel,
with impunity,
to harass, coerce and humiliate persons involved in the proceedings of the
complaints and disciplinary systems
-
for these are classed as
“private
matters”
Intrusion into “private matters” by governmental authorities or agencies
is not uncommon. “Private matters” may become matters of “public
interest”, where, to follow the government’s words, the “test
of privacy relates to the substance and nature of the act”
is applied.
One example is the manner in which the police invade the privacy of family life
when there is a suspicion that a child is being abused. A second example is the
police powers to breach company “private
matters”
if they suspect either an illegal cover-up, or a crime such as embezzlement has
taken place. A third example is the ability of the police to intervene in a
Church’s
“private matters”
if they suspect there is activity damaging to the State – such as terrorism.
Over the past few years, the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), to
retain privacy when illegal acts might be being committed, has become
particularly controversial. Some NDAs, to protect copyrights and such, are
legitimate, but “privacy” has often been extended to cover other, less
legitimate, actions.
In June
2019, a House of Commons Select Committee on Equality reported:
“NDAs should not be used to
silence victims of discrimination and harassment, and employers and their legal
advisers should not be complicit in using NDAs to cover up allegations of
unlawful behaviour”.
The intrusion into “private
matters”
is not the only way in which the Human Rights Act may be applied to the
Discipline and Complaints system of a religious organisation. Even when the
procedures of a disciplinary panel remain “private”,
the Human Rights Act may be important in the
determination of
the punishment.
The
Church fully supports the personal dignity and rights of all its members and it
therefore adheres to the standards set by the Human Rights Act.
We can
see from this that the Methodist Church, although it is a “hybrid”
organisation”, is, by no means, wholly exempt from the standards set by the
Human Rights Act. This is not how some in the Methodist Church see the
situation. They refer to the guidelines that the Church published to clarify its
standing orders.
“It
now seems clear that Convention rights do not apply to the Church’s procedures
for dealing with complaints and discipline”
The
exemptions to the Human Rights Act are qualified. The first test is that
privacy :
“ must relate to
the substance and nature of the act”
and secondly, over-arching this, is the:
“statutory aim of promoting
the observance of human rights values”
Applying these qualifications to the Complaints and Discipline procedures in the
Methodist Church requires the intrusion into “private matters” by the
application of the standards of the Human Rights Act.
--00—
ADDITIONAL RESTRAINTS
on “hybrid
organisations”
There
are three additional ways in which the Human Rights Act may be used to intrude
into the “private matters” of the Methodist Church to correct
irregularities or wrongdoing.
The
Methodist Church is known all around the world as representing, in some fashion,
Great Britain. Thus it is in the public interest in Britain that the Methodist
Church should be seen as a bastion of Human Rights.
The
government may decide to intervene if any organisation does not meet proper
standards in a manner - so as to cause the reputation of the United Kingdom to
be damaged. The Methodist Church is subject to the terms of the Methodist Act,
1976.
A
second reason why adherence to the Human Rights Act is important is when the
Methodist Church chooses to use an established judicial system such as “the
balance of probabilities”. The procedures of that system are qualified by the
terms of the Human Rights Act.
Thirdly, the Church must submit its “public benefit” in its annual report to the
Charity Commission. The judgement by the Commission as to whether the terms of
that public benefit is sufficient or not, is qualified by the terms of the Human
Rights Act.
Weakness in the System.
The
structure of the executive committees of the Methodist Church makes it
vulnerable to committing potential breaches of the Human Rights Act. Assessing
human rights is not the work of lay persons.
Connexional
panels require persons with a wide range of expertise, either individually or
collectively. Given the relatively small numbers of persons available from which
to choose connexional panel members, it is almost impossible for all the
requirements of expertise, necessary in a connexional complaints panel, to be
satisfied. In reality, there is too much work for too few people. Thus, there is
too much reliance on the training of the persons involved.
As a consequence
of this, there is a general tendency for members of such panels to rely on what
some might term “natural justice”, emanating from the “Christian ethic” -
rather than justice in accordance with the law of the land.
CASE STUDIES:
Two case studies
may illustrate the weaknesses in this system.
Case 1
The
Stacey Report on sex abuse
in the
Methodist Church.
Sex
abuse is a criminal activity. It is notoriously difficult to deal with
because of the nature of the evidence in most cases. Nevertheless, in the 1750
cases discovered by this review, not only were the human rights of most of the
victims and supposed perpetrators assessed and considered solely by the
Church, but the level of culpability of most of the accused was also
considered solely by the Church.
The
figures produced by the report suggest that it is possible that about 206 cases
of alleged criminal activity by Methodist ministers had been investigated and
judged, in one form or another inside the Church. Many of those who sat
in judgment may have been untutored in law.
It
seems that the human rights of some 412 persons (victims and accused) were
assessed or judged by persons who may have had little or no formal legal
training, particularly in the Human Rights Act. The actions of these
persons were not subject to scrutiny, nor was there any easy appeal of
their decisions.
In
particular, we may surmise from this that the victims in the cases that
involved 206 ministers had their human rights protected only by the
internal promises given by the safeguarding committee of the Church and the
guidelines to the Standing Orders.
CASE 2.
THE
CASE OF PETER TIMMS
The
potential breaches in the Timms case were in three main areas.
a) He
was coerced in an attempt to persuade him into signing a false confession
b) he
was placed under covert surveillance and
c)
unreasonable restrictions were imposed upon his evidence.
The
leader of the connexional panel, Mr. Kitchin, further discriminated against him
by demonstrating a reluctance to acquire “best evidence”. He did not consult with Peter Timms’ GP over Timms’ health and its relevance to the
date of the final hearing. This constituted a direct breach of SO 1124 (7) -
in that the connexional panel “had not taken all the proper steps”. Such
is specifically required of such a panel by this standing order.
However, the major potential breach of the Human Rights Act in the case occurred
when Peter Timms was later called before a Connexional Disciplinary inquiry.
Following the adverse report of the connexional complaints panel, Peter Timms
had continued to protest against the procedures adopted by Mr. Chris Kitchin and
the connexional complaints panel. He was charged with causing harm, and
damaging the reputation of the Church.
The
leader of the Disciplinary panel considering this case was Mr. Graham Danbury.
Mr
Danbury is a colleague of Mr. Kitchin’s in the Methodist Church at Hatfield
Road, St Albans. Both he and Mr Kitchin have together been members of the same
Church council. They have known each other, both professionally and socially,
for many years. They are also professional colleagues, in that Mr.
Kitchin was, for many years a magistrate in the area and his office and court
were just across the road from the court of Mr. Danbury, who is the Deputy
Coroner in St Albans.
The
doctrine of recusal in such circumstances is underpinned by important public
policy reasons. Those reasons affect the reputation and the “public benefit”
of the Methodist Church. One aspect of this is that by effectively claiming
under SO 1104(7) that such matters are “private matters” the Church is
committing a potential breach of the Human Rights Act.
The
decision in any tribunal, in order to be aligned with article 6 of the Human
Rights Act, must be made by persons who are independent - and, indeed, are
seen to be independent, of any influence that might reasonably be perceived
as compromising their ability to consider cases fairly and impartially.
To
act otherwise would not reflect the Human Rights Act, nor the European
Convention, as is required by the Methodist Church. Nor does such action
reflect the guiding principles of the Methodist Church. It also constitutes an
affront to
the
inherent
dignity of all human beings involved in the proceedings.
Most
pertinently, since the disciplinary investigation was conducted under the
system of “the balance of probabilities”, the terms of the Human Rights Act
applied directly to the procedures of the panel.
It must
have been clear to Mr. Danbury, with his almost three decades experience as a
coroner, that he should have recused himself from the work of the
disciplinary panel. His association with Mr Kitchin was far too close to be
acceptable.
There
can be no excuse for this. As a part of the panel’s investigations, the members
- and in particular Mr Danbury - needed to read the articles on this website,
for it was the primary cause of the action against Peter Timms. The actions of
Mr Kitchin, and the documentary evidence concerning it, are integral to the
website.
It
would have been clear to Mr. Danbury, well before the final hearing, that the
entire case against Timms was effectively built on his refusal to accept the
procedures adopted by Mr. Kitchin.
Mr.
Danbury, with almost three decades of experience as a coroner, must have known
the relevance and the detail of the
doctrine of recusal
in such circumstances.
That Mr
Danbury did not recuse himself from the Timms hearing was a gross injustice and
an abuse of the procedures of the disciplinary procedures of the Methodist
Church. His decision to remain as leader of the panel was clearly
discriminatory. It breached not only the Human Rights Act, but the guiding
principles of the Methodist Church.
And
yet, the Methodist Church accepted his decision.
For
a more detailed article on this subject, CLICK HERE
|
<
ALIGN="left"> Press to To return to home page press
back button on your Browser.
|
|