The complaint, made by the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews (‘the Board’), was that between 2005 and 2018 the respondent's conduct provoked and offended the Jewish community and/or constituted antisemitic activity, and that this was conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders within section 8(1)(d) of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003; further, that the first of these was contrary to Canon C26 para 2 in that it tended to cause just offence in others, and therefore constituted an offence under section 8(1)(a) of the Measure.
Of the twelve instances of conduct complained of, one – from 2012 – had previously been complained of, that complaint being compromised following a conciliation agreement. That instance was excluded by the President of Tribunals from the reference to the Tribunal. The respondent argued that seven of the remaining eleven complaints were an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle, as they related to events alleged to have taken place before the earlier complaint. Applying the broad, merits-based approach enunciated by Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] AC 1, the Tribunal concluded that the Board was not misusing or abusing the process by relying on the earlier matters; and therefore allowed the earlier matters to be pursued.
The respondent admitted the factual basis of the remaining eleven allegations, but denied that his conduct was unbecoming or inappropriate. He accepted that he had unintentionally provoked distress in the Jewish community, but believed that he had been misquoted and misunderstood. He denied that he was antisemitic. He contended that his right to engage in lawful political opinions and activities was protected by section 8(3) of the Measure.
The Tribunal heard expert evidence on the definition of antisemitism that should be applied at the time of the matters complained of, with specific reference to political comment on the activities of the State of Israel. It concluded that the understanding of antisemitism had evolved, from the definition in the 2001 report ‘Sharing One Hope’ as ‘forms of prejudice against Jews or Jewish beliefs, practices or customs’, to the September 2018 adoption by the College of Bishops of the working definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, together with its full accompanying list of illustrative examples, ‘without qualification or exemption’ (the latter post-dating the instances complained of). For the purposes of these proceedings, the Tribunal accepted that the primary definition in the relevant period was that encapsulated in ‘Sharing One Hope’.
The Tribunal also found a principled distinction between antisemitism and conduct provoking and offending the Jewish community. While being astute as to the difference between forms of prejudice against Jews and legitimate criticism of the policies of the State of Israel, activity falling short of antisemitism comprising criticism of those policies may still provoke and offend members of the Jewish community.
The Tribunal accepted that most, although not all, of the events that formed part of the allegations did provoke and offend the Jewish community. It was not satisfied that all of them amounted to conduct unbecoming; however, it found that some of them did. In addition, it concluded that on occasion the respondent's evidence was implausible and untrue; and that there was a pattern of behaviour on the part of the respondent on the eleven occasions between 2005 and 2018 to push the boundaries of acceptable conduct by an ordained minister as far as he could. The Tribunal did not find the respondent to be antisemitic, but on one occasion, he engaged in antisemitic activity by sharing a Facebook post – linking an article claiming to present evidence that Israel and American Jews were responsible for 9/11 – which, the Tribunal found, he knew to be virulently antisemitic. The respondent had conceded that antisemitic activity would constitute conduct unbecoming.
The Tribunal rejected the suggestion that the respondent derived any protection from section 8(3) of the Clergy Discipline Measure; to the extent that his activities provoked or offended the Jewish community or were antisemitic, they could not be described as lawful political activity.
The Tribunal found that in four instances, the respondent had provoked and offended the Jewish community; and in one instance, he had engaged in antisemitic activity, in each case being conduct unbecoming to the office and work of a clerk in holy orders. The Tribunal did not need to go on to consider the alleged breaches of Canon C26 para 2.
At a subsequent hearing on penalty, on 30 January 2023, the Tribunal imposed a prohibition on exercising any of the functions of his Holy Orders for a period of 12 years from the date on which the Bishop of Winchester withdrew his permission to officiate on 14 December 2018. [DW]
