Clergy Discipline Measure – Jersey
On a point of information, it needs to be clarified that the Clergy Discipline Measure does not apply to Jersey.
Section 48(3), Clergy Discipline Measure
This Measure shall extend to the whole of the Provinces of Canterbury and York except the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but the provisions thereof may be applied to the Channel Islands as defined in the Channel Islands (Church Legislation) Measures 1931 and 1957, or either of them, in accordance with those Measures and if an Act of Tynwald or an instrument made in pursuance of an Act of Tynwald so provides, shall extend to the Isle of Man subject to such exceptions, adaptations or modifications as may be specified in the Act of Tynwald or instrument.Link to 1931 Measure
Link to 1957 Measure
The Measures from 1931 and 1957 that are referenced permit the application of any Measure to the Channel Islands, but only with the consent of the relevant Deanery. That consent has not been given in Jersey for the Clergy Discipline Measure (indeed I believe the Bishop of Winchester has never even requested it).
The equivalent disciplinary process for Jersey is outlined in Section F3 of the Canons of the Church of England in Jersey.
I assume that the Dean wasn’t actually a direct party to exposing a vulnerable person to harm or abuse?
If so, this is primarily a question of rules. So I guess that the Bishop of Winchester is in a similar position to the Bishop of Europe – he has to accept that churches are, primarily, subject to the laws of the country in which they are resident. UK law only applies in the UK.
Jersey’s Solicitor General was asked questions about the Dean’s suspension in the States Assembly on Tuesday. It is an established principle that the most accurate information comes from the organ
grinder rather than the monkey atop. The replies of Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache’s can be heard here:
http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2013/03/questions-without-answers.html
My goodness this is complicated. From across the Atlantic I’m wondering if there’s broad agreement that this guy needs to go, and this is about who has the authority to get rid of him?