Fears Rogue Priests Could Sue for Damages
NEWS.com.au
THE disciplinary processes for dealing with rogue priests in almost every Anglican diocese in Australia are in doubt because of a landmark court challenge to their validity. The head of the Anglican Church in Australia, Dr Phillip Aspinall, has asked to be heard in the legal action, which could open the floodgates for civil claims against the Church by priests who have been sacked or disciplined. The application filed on behalf of Dr Aspinall warns that if the challenge to the standards ordinance succeeds, "it may have widespread and adverse consequences for all of the dioceses that make up the Anglican Church of Australia". The challenge stems from the case of controversial priest Peter Coote, who has been the subject of sexual misconduct and inappropriate behaviour complaints involving three women in the southern suburbs. The Professional Standards Committee of the Diocese of the Murray has been forced to launch Supreme Court legal action to defend its disciplinary processes. If it is unsuccessful, it would see Father Coote, who has been suspended for the past five years, returned to the ministry. It follows more than eight years of investigations, hearings by two Anglican Church Professional Standards Boards and reviews of their findings and recommendations. The latest of those reviews, conducted by barrister Neville Morcombe, QC, in April found the Professional Standards Board did not have jurisdiction to examine Father Coote's alleged misconduct. His decision has prompted the committee's Supreme Court action to uphold the jurisdiction of the board, declare Mr Morcombe's decision invalid and restrain him from making a determination. The Church's move is being challenged by Father Coote, who has engaged barrister Jonathon Wells, QC, to fight the application. Mr Morcombe has advised the court he will abide by its decision. There have so far been two hearings in the case, which may be referred to the Full Court of the Supreme Court later this month. In the application by Dr Aspinall, the Anglican Primate, to intervene in the proceedings, filed by Iles Selley partner Nick Iles, the ramifications of an adverse decision on the disciplinary regime are made clear. In an affidavit filed on behalf of the Primate, Mr Iles states in Mr Morcombe's review, Father Coote contended that the Professional Standards Ordinance 2007 of the diocese "was invalid as being inconsistent" with chapter IX of the Constitution of the Anglican Church. Mr Iles states the Primate wishes to make submissions to the court concerning: THE operation and interpretation of the National Constitution. THE relationship between chapter IX and the ordinance-making powers of individual dioceses. THE constitutional validity of the Professional Standards Ordinance 2007 of the Diocese of the Murray, regard the operation of chapter IX. THE jurisdiction of the Professional Standards Board of the diocese to determine questions referred to it in relation to the conduct of Father Coote between 1995 and 1998. "The Professional Standards Ordinance 2007 of the Diocese of the Murray is largely mirrored in some 21 of the 23 dioceses which constitute the Anglican Church of Australia," Mr Iles states. "The Primate wishes to be heard in support of the Anglican Church of Australia's professional standards regime, recognising that were any challenge to the validity of any professional standards ordinance to succeed, or should such a view be expressed by this honourable court, it may have widespread and adverse consequences for all of the dioceses that make up the Anglican Church of Australia. "In my respectful submission, the Primate also has an interest in the proper interpretation of the National Constitution and, in particular, insofar as it affects the rights, powers and responsibilities of individual dioceses. In seeking permission to intervene, the Primate seeks to protect the goodwill of the Anglican Church of Australia, which goodwill may be undermined by any finding that an individual diocese's professional standards ordinance was or may be invalid ... and the potential for the invalidity of these ordinances to result in civil claims against individual dioceses." An affidavit sworn by Peter Caporaso, the director of Professional Standards for the Diocese of the Murray, states Father Coote has been receiving his full stipend since being suspended in 2007. "Should this honourable court refuse to grant the relief which the plaintiffs seek, the first defendant may be able to have that suspension lifted and so the parties seek to have this matter heard as an urgent matter," he states in his affidavit. The saga was sparked in early 2004 when allegations were made against Father Coote by a number of women. The Professionals Standards Committee of the diocese hired retired senior police officer Bill Newman in 2004 to investigate the allegations and he found they were credible. His report, which has been obtained by The Advertiser, details how one woman attempted suicide after Father Coote allegedly entered her home without permission and had sex with her. After the Newman investigation, Father Coote was reprimanded by former bishop of the Murray Ross Davies, but the case was revived in 2007 as a direct result of discontent within the diocese over his light punishment. Father Coote was stood down in July, 2007 and formally suspended on April 1, 2008. The allegations were then the subject of a diocese Professional Standards Committee investigation in 2008, which was then referred to the Anglican Church's Professional Standards Board for a formal hearing. In 2009, the board published a determination and recommendation, but this was reviewed by criminal lawyer Lindy Powell, QC, after a request by Father Coote. The review process is allowed under the Anglican disciplinary regime. Ms Powell allowed the review and the case was returned to the board and a fresh hearing held before a panel consisting of different people chaired by magistrate Fred Field. In March last year, the board published a fresh determination and recommendation. Again, Father Coote asked for a review, conducted by Mr Morcombe. In April this year, Mr Morcombe published his decision. He concluded the board had no jurisdiction to undertake its inquiry. In June, the Professional Standards Committee - which comprises Susan Harrington, Peter Brown, Annette Cinnamond, Janet Nicholson and Caroline Pearce - launched the Supreme Court action seeking a declaration that the Professional Standards Board had jurisdiction, a declaration that Mr Morcombe's decision was invalid and an injunction restraining Mr Morcombe from making any determination. The findings and recommendations from both Board hearings have been suppressed from pub- lication by Supreme Court Justice Tom Gray.
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.