House of Lords - Diocese in Europe Measure Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure

Diocese in Europe Measure Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure - Ecclesiastical Committee Contents

THE PROVISIONS OF THE MEASURE

Section 1 - Misconduct

22. Section 1(3) inserts a new section 8(4) to (10) into the 2003 Measure. The new provisions will put in place a very limited exception to the important principle set out in section 8(3) of the 2003 Measure that no proceedings in respect of unbecoming conduct can be taken in respect of the lawful political opinions or activities of any bishop, priest or deacon.

23. Section 1(3) has its origins in the resolution of the General Synod carried in February 2009 on a private member's motion.[1]

24. At present, it is not misconduct for the purposes of the 2003 Measure for a member of the clergy to join or to be actively involved with a lawful political party whose aims or policies are inconsistent with the Church's teachings. Implementation of the General Synod resolution necessarily involves a change to that position.

25. The rationale behind the change is that the clergy of the Church of England are required by canon law (in the form of Canon C 26.2) "at all times [to] be diligent to frame and fashion their lives according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make [themselves] wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ". One aspect of that is that clergy are expected to act in accordance with the Church's teaching on racial equality. There are some political parties or organisations whose aims or policies are so repugnant to the Church's teaching on racial equality that the Church would be brought into disrepute if its clergy were actively associated with them, and the ministry of those clergy severely compromised: the public would have no confidence in bishops, priests or deacons who were members of, or actively supported, such organisations.

New section 8(4) in the 2003 Measure:

26. Under the new section 8(4) it will be unbecoming or inappropriate conduct for clergy to be members of, or to promote, or express or solicit support for, a political party or other organisation whose constitution, policies, objectives, activities or public statements are declared in writing by the House of Bishops to be incompatible with the teaching of the Church of England in relation to the equality of persons or groups of different races ('an incompatible organisation'). It will be for the House of Bishops to make any such declaration since it is bishops who are the guardians of the teachings and doctrine of the Church. In that capacity the House has already set out the teaching of the Church of England on race equality, in a theological statement entitled Affirming our Common Humanity.

27. The effect of the new provision will not be to prevent a cleric from merely expressing support for a particular policy or policies of an incompatible organisation (for example, its economic or transport policy), but it will prevent a cleric from taking the further step of joining that party or speaking in support of it generally, or encouraging others to join or support it generally. Support for an incompatible organisation, whether expressed privately or publicly, would be unbecoming or inappropriate conduct for clergy under the new provision. This is because under Canon C 26.2 a cleric's duty to fashion his life according to the doctrine of Christ covers both his professional and private life.

28. The working party chaired by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds charged with taking forward the implementation of the policy of the General Synod as reflected in its resolution of February 2009, and the General Synod subsequently, have been conscious of the need to ensure that the provisions of the Measure are not incompatible with the rights of Church of England clergy under Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)[2], Article 10 (freedom of expression)[3] and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association)[4] of the European Convention on Human Rights ('the Convention').

29. However, in doing so they have also borne in mind that the Church itself has rights under the Convention, in particular under Article 9 in relation to the manifestation of its beliefs and teachings - which embrace its right to ensure that its own clergy adhere to those teachings.

30. The provisions of the new section 8(4) are not considered to involve any incompatibility with the Convention rights of clergy so as to be problematic from the point of view of the Human Rights Act 1998. That would only be the case if, first, that provision interfered with one or more of the Convention rights referred to above and, secondly, any such interference could not be justified under the relevant Article. But neither of those propositions is true of the provision made by the new section 8(4).

31. As to the first issue, that of whether there would be any interference with a Convention right: "What constitutes interference depends on all the circumstances of the case, including the extent to which in the circumstances an individual can reasonably expect to be at liberty to manifest his or her beliefs in practice".[5] In particular "The Strasbourg institutions have not been at all ready to find an interference with the right to manifest religious belief in practice or observance where a person has voluntarily accepted an employment or role which does not accommodate that practice or observance and there are other means open to the person to practise or observe his or her religion without undue hardship or inconvenience".[6]

32. Thus for example, X v Denmark[7] (which is concerned with a cleric's rights under Article 9, but by analogy, would apply equally to rights under Articles 10 and 11), provides support for the view that Convention rights would not be engaged if the Church prevented its own clergy from joining or actively promoting racist organisations. In that case the European Commission on Human Rights set out the position in relation to the freedom of religion of clergy as follows:

"A church is an organised religious community based on identical or at least substantially similar views. Through the rights granted to its members under Art. 9 the Church itself is protected in its right to manifest its religion, to organise and carry out worship, teaching practice and observance, and it is free to act out and enforce uniformity in these matters. Further, in a State church system its servants are employed for the purpose of applying and teaching a specific religion. Their individual freedom of thought, conscience or religion is exercised at the moment they accept or refuse employment as clergymen, and their right to leave the Church guarantees their freedom of religion in case they oppose its teachings. In other words, the Church is not obliged to provide religious freedom to its servants and members, as is the State as such for everyone within its jurisdiction."[8]

33. Thus, since clergy who are members of, or otherwise active supporters of, an incompatible organisation have voluntarily sought ordination in the Church of England, and are able at any time to maintain that membership or support if they renounce active ordained ministry within the Church, it would seem that Church of England clergy cannot claim that their rights under any of Articles 9, 10 or 11 of the Convention would be interfered with by the new section 8(4).

34. Even if the new section 8(4) did involve an interference with the Convention rights of clergy under Articles 9, 10 and 11, a second strand of Strasbourg jurisprudence shows that any such interference could be justified. The rights granted under Articles 9, 10 and 11 are qualified rather than absolute. Interference with those rights is permitted if three conditions are satisfied, namely that: (i) the interference is prescribed by law; (ii) it is for a legitimate aim permitted by the Article in question; and (iii) it is necessary in a democratic society. Obviously, the new section 8(4) to be inserted by the Measure satisfies the first condition: it will be clear which parties or other organisations are incompatible bodies.

35. The second condition, that there must be a legitimate aim, is also satisfied, because the Church is seeking to protect its own rights under Article 9 by enforcing the requirement of its canon law that its clergy be wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ by, in this case, observing its own teaching on racial equality: to do so will enable it to ensure that the ministry of its clergy, and thus its own capacity to pursue its mission, is not compromised as a result of their involvement with incompatible organisations.

36. Support for this point can be found in ASLEF v UK[9] (which is concerned with trade union membership under Article 11), where the European Court of Human Rights stated:

· whether the objective justifying the interference is sufficiently important to justify limiting the right in question;

· whether the measures designed to meet the objective are rationally connected to it;

· whether the means used to impair the Convention right are no more than is necessary to accomplish that objective; and

· whether interference strikes a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community which requires carefully assessing the severity and consequences of the interference.[10]

37. Assessed against these criteria, any interference with the Convention rights involved in the new section 8(4) would be justified. In so far as the first of these criteria is concerned, it is relevant that in Jersild v Denmark[11] the European Court of Human Rights affirmed that insulting racist comments did not enjoy the protection of Article 10, and commented:

"The Court would emphasise … that it is particularly conscious of the vital importance of combating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations."

38. As regards the others, to allow disciplinary proceedings to be taken against a cleric of the Church of England who is a full member of, or otherwise overtly supports, an incompatible organisation is a rational and proportionate means of ensuring that the ministry of its clergy is not called into question because of their involvement with that body.

39. Support for this analysis can be found in the decision of the European Commission on Human Rights in Van der Heijden v The Netherlands[12] (where an employee was dismissed because he was an active member of a political party that was hostile to immigrant workers and whose objectives were opposed to those of the employer, which was a foundation concerned with the welfare of immigrants). In that case the Commission justified the relevant part of its decision as follows:

"The Commission notes that the applicant's contract was terminated because his political activities, as reported in the media, were incompatible with the aims of the Foundation. In the circumstances of the present case, the Commission regards it as reasonable that the employer should have some discretion concerning the composition of his staff. Moreover, in view of the applicant's professional duties and specific nature of his work, the Commission considers that the employer could reasonably take account of the adverse effects which his political activities might have on the Foundation's reputation, particularly in the eyes of the immigrants whose interests it sought to promote. For these reasons, the Commission considers that the restriction or sanction complained of was a measure necessary in a democratic society to protect the rights of others."

40. The rationale in Van der Heijden v The Netherlands therefore supports the proposition that, if a cleric has rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, those rights should not override the right of the church to regulate its own clergy so that they adhere to its teachings on racial equality.

New section 8(5) to 8(9) in the 2003 Measure:

41. These provisions will regulate the exercise of the new power to declare an organisation's constitution etc incompatible with the Church's teaching on racial equality.

42. A declaration of incompatibility with the Church's teaching on race equality will require a two-thirds majority in the House of Bishops.[13] Having made the declaration it would be the duty of the House to take appropriate steps to publish it.[14] The declaration would not, however, come into force with immediate effect, but would be laid before the General Synod to give its members the opportunity to call for a debate. If twenty five members called, in accordance with Standing Orders of the General Synod, for the declaration to be debated, it could not come into force unless it was approved by the Synod.[15] If a debate were not required, the declaration would come into force on the expiry of the time permitted by Standing Orders for giving notice calling for a debate.[16] This process would ensure that a declaration would have the support of the elected members of General Synod before it could become effective.

43. A declaration of incompatibility could be revoked by a resolution of the House of Bishops, subject to there being an opportunity for debate in the General Synod - as in the case of the making of declarations. A revocation, however, unlike a declaration, would not require a two-thirds majority in the House of Bishops.[17] If an organisation were to change its position on racial equality so that it became compatible with the Church's teachings, the House would therefore be able to revoke the relevant declaration by a simple majority.

44. Section 1(4) provides that the new provisions in section 1 of the Measure will not have effect in relation to any misconduct that occurs before section 1 comes into force.

Section 2 - Penalty by consent

45. In cases where misconduct is admitted by the respondent but the respondent and the bishop cannot agree as to the appropriate penalty, a complaint currently has to be referred to the Designated Officer for a formal investigation in accordance with section 17 of the 2003 Measure, and thereafter referred to the President of Tribunals so that the matter can be put before a tribunal for consideration of the appropriate penalty.

46. Section 2 will enable a bishop and respondent to agree upon a penalty by consent even after the complaint has been referred to the Designated Officer,[18] including where it has been further referred to a tribunal. This provision will be of advantage in cases where respondents initially have unreasonable expectations about the penalty that should be imposed but on further reflection realise that the bishop's assessment of the appropriate penalty is realistic. This will avoid the need to convene a tribunal, and allow the case to be dealt with at diocesan level by the bishop.

Section 3 - Right of appeal

47. A respondent cleric under the 2003 Measure has an absolute right to appeal on questions of law or fact, and in respect of any penalty imposed. The appeal is made to the Arches Court of Canterbury or the Chancery Court of York, as appropriate, and is heard by five members of the court.[19]

48. A penalty imposed by a bishop's disciplinary tribunal cannot be implemented until an appeal is determined. Consequently, at present, an appeal with no merits can be pursued by a respondent simply to delay the imposition of the penalty and (in cases of removal from office) the point at which stipend ceases to be payable.

49. The consultation undertaken by the Clergy Discipline Commission in 2008-9 revealed strong support for the proposal that section 20 of the 2003 Measure be amended to require both the respondent and the Designated Officer to obtain leave to appeal before an appeal can be made (the Designated Officer presents the case against a cleric, and can only appeal on questions of law). Section 3(3) of the Measure gives effect to that proposal.

50. Under the provisions introduced by section 3(3) an application for leave to appeal would be made in writing explaining the grounds for appealing, and the application for leave could be disposed of with or without a hearing, in the court's discretion. The application for leave to appeal would be considered by two people, one of whom would be the Dean of the Arches and Auditor, and the other a lay member of the relevant provincial panel in the case of an application by the cleric, or an ordained member of the provincial panel in the case of an application by the Designated Officer. If either member of the court considered there was a real prospect of success, then permission would be granted. Additionally, at first instance the tribunal or the Vicar-General's Court would be able to give leave to appeal. This process will enable unmeritorious appeals to be disposed of efficiently and speedily, and where leave is granted, the real issues in an appeal could be identified at an early stage by the tribunal or court enabling the appellate court to deal with the case more effectively.

51. Section 3(4) will make changes in relation to the judges of the appellate court to bring the practice of appointing appellate judges in to line with the appointment of members of a bishop's disciplinary tribunal at first instance, including by giving the cleric an opportunity to make representations to the President as to the suitability of any person the President proposes to appoint. Under the current un-amended provisions of the 2003 Measure the judges of the two appellate courts are permanent appointments.

52. Section 3(4) will also make technical changes to the composition of the appellate court in relation to appeals by bishops and archbishops from the Vicar-General's court. There will be a requirement for one of the two judges in Holy Orders to be in episcopal orders, but the episcopal judge will be able to be appointed from outside the provincial panel. This will ensure episcopal representation amongst the judges for appeals involving bishops and archbishops. Where the appeal is made by an archbishop the judges appointed by the President (other than the judge in episcopal orders) are to be appointed from the provincial panel of the other province, so that they are not appointed from the panel of the archbishop's own province.

53. Section 3(5) provides that the changes to the appellate process do not have effect in relation to any complaint made before the date when these provisions come into force.

Section 4 - Convictions and matrimonial orders etc: priests and deacons

54. Section 4(2) extends the bishop's power to impose a penalty under section 30 of the 2003 Measure without further proceedings following conviction for a criminal offence.

55. Presently under section 30 of the 2003 Measure, a bishop can impose a penalty following a criminal conviction only where the court has passed a sentence of imprisonment (whether or not suspended). This has attracted strong criticism in relation to individual cases where, under present sentencing guidelines in the criminal courts, cases of serious criminal misconduct (such as downloading and possessing obscene material in relation to children) have resulted in non-custodial sentences. A bishop will now be able to impose a penalty, where appropriate, under section 30 of the 2003 Measure following conviction for serious offences even if a prison sentence has not been imposed. Under section 4(8) these changes will not apply to convictions that pre-date the coming into force of this part of the Measure.

56. Section 4(2) sets the threshold in non-custodial cases for the purposes of section 30 of the 2003 Measure as an offence other than a summary offence - i.e. a criminal offence that is not triable solely in the Magistrates Court. As with the present power, which is restricted to custodial cases, the bishop will have a discretion in all the circumstances of the case as to whether to impose a penalty following a serious criminal conviction, and before he does so he will be required to consult the President of Tribunals, and to invite the priest or deacon to make representations. If a penalty is imposed by the bishop, the priest or deacon concerned will have the right to ask the relevant Archbishop to review the bishop's decision.

57. Section 4(2) will also enable the bishop to use his powers under section 30 of the 2003 Measure to remove from office a priest or deacon who has been included in a barred list under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. As with other cases under section 30 the bishop will be obliged to consult the President of Tribunals first, and give the respondent cleric an opportunity to make representations.

58. Section 4(3) defines what is meant by a "barred list".

59. Section 4(4) and 4(5) will amend section 30 of the 2003 Measure to enable the bishop to apply to the President of Tribunals for an extension in the two year period within which he must act under section 30 when imposing a penalty following a criminal conviction or a divorce court's decree absolute for adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion. A priest or deacon is under a duty to notify the bishop of a conviction or decree absolute, but if he or she fails to notify the bishop, then at present the two year period could expire without the bishop learning of the conviction or decree absolute. Under the new provisions introduced by section 4 the President would be able to extend the two year period, but only after having first consulted the priest or deacon, and only if satisfied that the bishop did not know of the conviction or decree absolute.

60. Section 4(6) includes a consequential technical amendment arising out of section 4(2), and also makes an amendment to the definition of the "relevant diocese" in section 30(7) of the 2003 Measure to clarify which diocesan bishop has jurisdiction to impose a penalty following a matrimonial breakdown.

61. Section 4(7) makes a minor consequential change to the heading to section 30 of the 2003 Measure.

Section 5 - Convictions and matrimonial orders etc: bishops and archbishops

62. Section 5 applies in respect of bishops and archbishops provisions that correspond to section 4 with regard to convictions, decrees absolute and debarment.

Section 6 - Suspension of priest or deacon

63. Section 6(2) will amend section 36 of the 2003 Measure and enable the bishop to suspend a priest or deacon after conviction for an offence other than for a summary offence. This will allow the bishop time to consider whether to impose a penalty, and, if appropriate, to implement it under section 30(1)(a) of the 2003 Measure. At present under section 36 of the 2003 Measure, a suspension must come to an end when criminal court proceedings are concluded - this could unfortunately result in clergy being restored to ministry temporarily whilst the procedures for removal from office under section 30 of the 2003 Measure are followed, even if it is not in the public interest to restore them.

64. Section 6(2) will also enable the bishop to suspend a priest or deacon who is entered on a barred list whilst the procedures for removal from office are followed under section 30 of the 2003 Measure.

65. Section 6(3) is consequential upon the amendments made in section 6(2).

66. Section 6(4) enables any suspension imposed under these new provisions to be renewed beyond the initial three months if the steps required for removal from office under section 30 of the 2003 Measure have not meanwhile been completed.

67. Section 6(5) makes a minor amendment to the heading to section 36 of the 2003 Measure.

Section 7 - Suspension of bishop or archbishop

68. Section 7 relates to suspensions and applies in respect of bishops and archbishops provisions that correspond to section 6.

Section 8 - Archbishops' list

69. This section concerns the Archbishops' list, which is maintained under section 38 of the 2003 Measure and includes details of, inter alia, clergy upon whom a penalty has been imposed under the 2003 Measure. Bishops refer to the Archbishops' list when making appointments or granting permissions to officiate in their diocese. Section 8(2) will provide for a new category in the Archbishops' list, namely clergy whose names are included in a barred list under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.

70. Section 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) make a number of technical amendments to section 38 of the 2003 Measure to clarify that the Archbishops act jointly when compiling and maintaining the list.

Section 9 - Amendments and repeals

71. Section 9(1) makes provision for the minor amendments set out in the Schedule to the Measure.

72. Section 9(2) to 9(7) make amendments to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure that are consequential to the provisions in section 3 relating to appeals, and the composition of the appellate court.

73. Section 9(8) clarifies that the definition of "ecclesiastical judges" in section 10 of the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure 1986, as amended by section 44(4) of the 2003 Measure, includes those who chair a bishop's disciplinary tribunal. The Ecclesiastical Fees Measure provides a means for fixing the fees payable to ecclesiastical judges for the performance of the duties of their office.

Section 10 - Citation, commencement and extent

74. Section 10 deals with citation of the Measure, commencement, and extension to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It is in the usual form for Measures.

The Schedule

75. Paragraphs 2 and 3 will enable the President and Deputy President of Tribunals to delegate their functions. The President's role is set out in section 4 of the 2003 Measure. He can issue practice directions, act as chairman of a tribunal if important points of law or principle are involved, and exercise the other functions conferred on him elsewhere in the Measure.[20] He also exercises certain functions prescribed in the Clergy Discipline Rules, such as deciding whether to cure or waive irregularities in procedure (rule 103), or to substitute a complainant (rule 56).

76. Under section 4(3) of the 2003 Measure the Deputy President may act for the President of Tribunals when the President is unable or unwilling to act, but there is no-one other than the Deputy President who can do so. Since there could be occasions when both the President and Deputy President are unable or unwilling to act - for instance if the respondent to a complaint were a friend of them both - provision needs to be made to cover such an eventuality. Hence paragraph 3 provides that the President or Deputy President may select, to act in his place when he is absent or unable or unwilling to act, any person who may be appointed as the chair of a disciplinary tribunal.

77. Paragraph 4 amends section 21(4) of the 2003 Measure which relates to the composition of the provincial panels from whom members of a disciplinary tribunal are appointed by the President. Section 21(4) provides that no person who is not an actual communicant within the meaning of rule 54(1) of the Church Representation Rules shall be nominated to serve on the provincial panel. Rule 54(1) imposes a condition that a person must be on the electoral roll to qualify as an actual communicant, and under rule 1 only lay members are entitled to have their names entered on the roll. Consequently, section 21(4) of the 2003 Measure can only apply to lay members of the provincial panel (whether nominated to the panel under section 21(2)(a), (2)(c) or (3)(a)), and paragraph 4 of the Schedule will clarify this.

78. Paragraph 5 amends section 23 of the 2003 Measure. This relates to the Vicar-General's court, which is the court for disciplinary hearings in respect of bishops and archbishops. Paragraph 5(a) is concerned with appointing a person to chair the court in place of the Vicar-General in proceedings against bishops. Under section 23(1)(a) of the 2003 Measure the Vicar-General can be recused only if he or she is personally acquainted with the complainant or respondent, in which case the President appoints a person to be chair of the court from those nominated to serve as chairs on the provincial panel of the province other than that in which the bishop serves. Paragraph 5(a) will enable the Vicar-General to stand down in wider circumstances than at present, and will enable a chair to be appointed from either provincial panel, there being no logical reason for restricting it to the other provincial panel (as chairs are nominated to a provincial panel by the relevant archbishop, so bishops play no part in their nomination). Paragraph 5(c) amends section 23(2)(a) in relation to proceedings against archbishops, and will similarly enable the Vicar-General to stand down in wider circumstances than at present. The chair presiding in place of the Vicar-General will continue to be appointed from the provincial panel of the other province, because it would be inappropriate for a chair to take part in proceedings against the archbishop who appointed him or her.

79. Paragraphs 5(b) and 5(d) bring into line the appointment of clerical members with the appointment of lay members to the Vicar-General's Court. At present there is no requirement for clerical members of the court to be appointed from either provincial panel, but paragraph 5(b) will require clerical members (other than those in episcopal orders) to be appointed from the provincial panel of the province other than that in which the bishop serves. This will not apply to the episcopal member of the court, because, otherwise, the pool of possible appointees might be too small to ensure a fair hearing. Paragraph 5(d), which is in respect of hearings against an archbishop, provides for clerical members of the court who are not in episcopal orders to be appointed from the provincial panel of the other province.

80. Paragraph 6 amends section 34 of the 2003 Measure. A priest or deacon is required by section 34 of the 2003 Measure to inform the diocesan bishop if a decree nisi has been made absolute or an order of judicial separation made in respect of his or her marriage (and similarly, a bishop is required to inform his archbishop, and an archbishop is required to inform the other archbishop in the event of such court orders in respect of their marriages). Section 34 does not however require the cleric to tell the bishop what the bishop needs to know for the purposes of section 30(1)(b), which is whether he or she was respondent to the petition, and whether it was presented on the grounds of adultery, desertion or unreasonable behaviour. Paragraph 6 will correct this omission in section 34.

81. Paragraph 7 imposes a duty on a cleric who has been placed on a barred list under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 to inform the bishop (or archbishop, or other archbishop, as the case may be) that he or she has been included in the list and the reasons for inclusion. Being included on a barred list may then lead to steps being taken under section 30 of the 2003 Measure (as amended by section 4(2)(c) and 4(3) and section 5(2)(c) and 5(3) of the Measure).

82. Under section 36(1)(b) of the 2003 Measure a bishop may suspend a priest or deacon holding preferment on being arrested for suspicion of committing a criminal offence. Paragraph 8 clarifies that this provision applies whether the arrest took place in England or elsewhere.

83. Paragraph 9 makes a similar clarification in relation to the arrest of bishops and archbishops by amending the corresponding provision in section 37(1)(b) of the 2003 Measure.

84. Paragraph 10 amends the procedure for revising a code of practice published by the Clergy Discipline Commission under section 39 of the 2003 Measure. It gives the Commission an opportunity to consider a draft code of practice further in the light of any amendments that might be made by the General Synod, but the present position is maintained that the final form of a code of practice cannot be issued without the approval of the General Synod. If the Commission were therefore to make further amendments to a draft code after the General Synod had amended it, paragraph 10 provides that the code as re-amended by the Commission could not be issued until it had been referred back to the General Synod for further approval.

85. Paragraph 11 amends the interpretation section of the 2003 Measure to include the meaning of "barred list" under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.

86. Paragraph 12 makes two minor technical amendments to section 44 of the 2003 Measure. The first repeals section 44(1), which became redundant when section 95 of the Pluralities Act 1838 was repealed by the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure 2009. The second amendment corrects a reference in section 44(4) with regard to section 20 of the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure 1986.

87. Paragraph 13 corrects an omission in section 45(2)(a) of the 2003 Measure where a reference to "Measure 1990" in section 26(2)(a) of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 should read "Measures 1990 and 1994". The amendment is required because section 26(2)(a) of the 1991 Measure has been amended to refer to the "Care of Cathedrals Measures 1990 and 1994".

1 See paragraph 12 above. Back

2 Article 9: "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance." Back

3 Article 10: "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…" Back

4 Article 11: "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." Back

5 R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2007] 1 AC 100 per Lord Bingham of Cornhill at paragraph 22. Back

6 Ibid at paragraph 23. Back

7 (1976) 5 DR 157 Back

8 Although this analysis has been questioned (see Copsey v WWB Devon Clays [2005] ICR 1789), as Lord Bingham of Cornhill stated in the Denbigh High School case "Even if it be accepted that the Strasbourg institutions have erred on the side of strictness in rejecting complaints of interference, there remains a coherent and remarkably consistent body of authority which our domestic courts must take into account and which shows that interference is not easily established". Back

9 [2007] IRLR 361 Back

10 Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167 at paragraph 19. Back

11 (1994) 19 EHRR 1 Back

12 (1985) 41 DR 264 Back