Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T07:19:32.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Armstrong v Robinson

Disciplinary Tribunal: Diocese of Chester, August 2008 Clergy Discipline – neglect or inefficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2008

Justin Gau ,
Ruth Arlow  and
Will Adam
Justin Gau
Affiliation:
Barrister, Deputy Chancellor of the Diocese of Lincoln
Ruth Arlow
Affiliation:
Barrister, Deputy Chancellor of the Dioceses of Chichester and Norwich
Will Adam
Affiliation:
Rector of Girton, Ely Diocesan Ecumenical Officer
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Case Notes
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 127 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2008

The complainant had been a Child Protection Officer Advisor to the Chester Diocese since 1997. Canon Robinson was rector of a parish and an honorary canon of Chester Cathedral. In February 2004, Z (who was serving a sentence of life imprisonment for manslaughter) was released on licence. In September 2004, Canon Robinson appointed Z as a voluntary youth worker in his parish, before the results of a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure (which had been applied for in July 2004) had been received. In October 2005, the PCC, following the intervention of the diocesan secretary and the Bishop of Chester, arranged for Z to stand down temporarily as a youth worker. In March 2006, Canon Robinson attempted to re-instate Z, having been outvoted on the matter at a meeting of the PCC. The complaint concerned

  1. i. Allowing Z to act as a voluntary youth worker in 2004 without first obtaining CRB clearance;

  2. ii. After CRB disclosure was obtained, ignoring diocesan advice to terminate the appointment pending a risk assessment; and

  3. iii. After the PCC had determined that Z should stand down pending a risk assessment, attempting to re-instate Z in March 2006 as a voluntary youth worker without obtaining a child protection risk assessment.

Each, it was alleged, amounted to neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of Canon Robinson's office under section 8(1)(c) of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, in failing to comply with the House of Bishops' Child Protection Policy 2004, as applied in the Diocese of Chester, and not following the recommended safe recruitment practice. The tribunal found that:

  1. i. Canon Robinson had failed to comply with the House of Bishops' Policy in appointing Z to start work as voluntary youth worker and that this constituted deliberate neglect in the performance of the duties of Canon Robinson's office;

  2. ii. The deliberate conduct of Canon Robinson in allowing Z to continue to work as a youth worker following receipt of the diocesan secretary's letter constituted a failure to comply with the Policy and (by a majority of 4 to 1) that this constituted neglect in the performance of the duties of Canon Robinson's office; and

  3. iii. Canon Robinson's attempt to re-instate Z as a youth worker constituted a failure to comply with the Policy and (again by a majority of 4 to 1) that this constituted neglect in the performance of the duties of his office.

Canon Robinson was rebuked and restrained for a period of five years from making, or sharing in the making of, any appointment involving direct or regular contact with children in respect of which enhanced or standard disclosure from the CRB is required pursuant to any relevant House of Bishops' or diocesan policy document, in any parish of which he was incumbent or priest-in-charge. [JG]