Gail Orchard, an Anglican Deacon in the Diocese of Newcastle, has won a three-year battle in the church’s legal structures, overturning a charge of “conduct that is a habitual and wilful neglect of ministerial duty.”
A finding by the Anglican Church of Australia’s highest legal body, the Appellate Tribunal, turned on the meaning of the word “admonition.”
Ms Orchard’s case began in 2022 when Peter Stuart, the Bishop of Newcastle, was concerned that a long-time friend and his family were living with Ms Orchard, believing that her friend had been convicted of some domestic violence offences. “After advice from the Diocese Professional Standards Committee, he considered that this was undesirable,” the Tribunal finding outlined. “The Bishop met with Ms Orchard on 4 October 2022 and advised her, inter alia, to arrange for her friend and his family to leave the home.”
The next day, the Bishop sent Orchard the email that became the crux of the case. “It was titled “Your Ordination” and apparently confirmed the earlier discussion. It also, rather indirectly, indicated that she should arrange for her friend to leave her home.”
The Tribunal described what happened next: “Ms Orchard did not do so, permitting her friend to remain residing there and, under the Diocese’s Clergy Discipline Ordinance 2019 (the Ordinance), she was charged with two offences arising out of the situation.
“After a hearing, the Diocesan Tribunal dismissed the second charge but found that Ms Orchard was guilty of the first charge, namely: Conduct contrary to clause 1 (3) of the Offences Canon 1962 for the Diocese of Newcastle (as amended) being conduct that is a habitual and wilful neglect of ministerial duty after written admonition in respect thereof by the bishop of the diocese.”
Ms Orchard then appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which found that the email sent by the Bishop was not an admonition; therefore, the findings of the Newcastle tribunal were dismissed, granting Ms Orchard a win.
The tribunal, led by Justice Debra Mullins AO, as President and Richard Refshauge AM SC, Deputy President, had to wrestle with the meaning of “admonition” a word for which is no formal legal definition, in any legislation the tribunal listed that uses the terms “admonish” or admonition”. In addition “The High Court has not defined the term, but has used it.”
The tribunal found that the meaning of admonition in the church’s canons (laws) required the “admonition to have the effect of a censure. That is, ‘harsh criticism, expression of disapproval’ (Oxford English Dictionary) or ‘an expression of disapproval, adverse or hostile criticism; blaming’ (Macquarie Dictionary).
“Secondly, as the basis for further penal action, it must be clear that it is part of the discipline process and thus to provide procedural fairness to the recipient, knowing what an appropriate response must be and the consequences of non-compliance.”
The Tirunal found “here the email fails really on both counts. The concerns mentioned are merely with the impression that the living arrangements, namely that Ms Orchard has her friend and his family living with her, give “the impression … [of] a pro perpetrator [sic] position”. This is hardly sufficient for “adverse criticism” or “blaming”. It is hardly a disciplinary matter, rather a relationship that gives rise to a wrong and undesirable perception.”
The tribunal also found they had not been provided with evidence about what ministerial duty Orchard might have failed to carry out.
Because the tribunal did not regard the Bishop’s email as an Admonition, they found in favour of Orchard and upheld her appeal
Orchard was represented by Chris Bedding, of the Faith Workers Alliance (FWA).
FWA believes that the case raises issues for pastors, ministers and other workers in faith-based organisations. “This matter exposes serious deficits which affect all faith workers,” FWA stated.
“Firstly, faith organisations have inadequate mechanisms for conflict resolution. When inevitable conflicts occur, faith organisations typically use cumbersome and costly complaints processes. Yet surely resolution with the assistance of a neutral third party could be attempted prior to complex proceedings in a church court?
“FWA strongly supports alternative dispute resolution. We commend those faith organisations that provide opportunities to respond to conflict in a mature and respectful way.
“Secondly, faith organisations sometimes neglect procedural fairness. Decision-makers regularly make insufficient enquiries into their jurisdiction. Key documents are ambiguous or misinterpreted. Processes drag out for years unnecessarily. FWA demands procedural fairness for all faith workers. We call upon faith organisations to live their values and ensure that decision-making affords a fair hearing and is free from bias.”
Image: Newcastle Cathedral