DISQUIET over the way in which a disciplinary case against the Bishop of Aberdeen & Orkney, the Rt Revd Anne Dyer, was dropped last year has been aired in an exchange of letters between concerned individuals and the Primus.
A letter from a Licensed Lay Minister at St Olaf’s, Kirkwall, in Orkney, Peter Ferguson-Smyth, was circulated to clergy in the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC) last month. In it, he argued that the SEC’s safeguarding policy hadn’t been properly followed in regards to allegations of bullying made against Bishop Dyer.
The policy sets out a requirement that, when allegations are made, an “impartial determination of allegations of abuse against clergy and other church workers, and assessment of their suitability for future ministry” should take place.
The SEC’s policy is explicitly based on the Anglican Communion Safe Charter, which the Church adopted in 2016. Guidelines that accompany the Charter say that provinces should have a “formal process for an impartial person or group of people to investigate the allegations and determine their truth or otherwise”.
It is this requirement that Mr Ferguson-Smyth suggests has not been satisfied in the handling of allegations against Bishop Dyer.
A disciplinary tribunal at which allegations of bullying against Bishop Dyer would have been heard was due to take place last summer, after a lengthy suspension while the claims were investigated, but the tribunal was delayed when she requested more time to prepare (News, 23 August).
The Procurator, Paul Reid KC, who is formally independent of the SEC, subsequently decided to drop the case (News, 11 October 2024), clearing the way for Bishop Dyer to return to work.
In his ruling, Mr Reid wrote: “I remain of the view that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in respect of each allegation.” However, he opted not to proceed with the case, citing the harm it might cause to the alleged victims.
Mr Ferguson-Smyth said that this decision meant that the SEC had “not responded effectively to allegations of serious abuse, neither in practice nor by the measure of its own rules”.
He wrote: “It cannot conduct a proper risk assessment to determine whether Bishop Anne or her conduct pose a risk because it has not determined the truth or otherwise of what happened, nor can it offer alleged victims appropriate support.”
In response, the Primus of the SEC, the Most Revd Mark Strange, wrote to clergy and church secretaries on 8 May.
“The email from Mr Ferguson-Smyth makes allegations of a lack of due process over safeguarding matters. These allegations will have caused doubt and uncertainty in some places, and for that reason it is necessary to address suggestions of a lack of due process and to provide reassurance,” the Primus wrote.
Bishop Strange, who is also the Bishop of Moray, Ross & Caithness, wrote that Mr Reid’s decision was an “impartial determination, regardless of any individual’s personal view of the matter. All parties should respect the Procurator’s decision.”
After the publication of Mr Reid’s judgment, Bishop Strange and three other bishops in the SEC publicly called on Bishop Dyer to “consider whether she is still the right person to lead the diocese” — an intervention which she described as “unprofessional and un-Christian” (News, 18 October 2024).
On 10 May, Dr Stephen Goodyear and Richard Murray, who are both members of the SEC in Aberdeen, wrote a further letter in response to Bishop Strange in which they reiterate the argument that Mr Reid’s decision did not amount to the required “impartial determination”.
“In fact, he indicated that he did not have powers to make such a determination and that such powers lay instead with the Clergy Discipline Tribunal,” they wrote.
As a result, the SEC had “failed to deal with allegations of serious abuse in the terms required by the Safeguarding Policy”.
The letter from Dr Goodyear and Mr Murray also suggested that Bishop Strange had “cynically ignored” their previous correspondence, and challenged his assertion that support had been offered to people affected by the process.
“Multiple alleged victims and complainers first learnt of the SEC’s decision to dismiss the allegations of abuse against Mrs Dyer through the press or from people who had read online coverage of the decision,” they wrote.
A spokesperson for the SEC said on Thursday: “Complaints were made and investigated under an established legal process, and during that process the Church’s independent procurator, an advocate, decided not to lead evidence at a Clergy Discipline Tribunal. His decision was accepted by the tribunal.
“As was stated in the letter issued last week, the procurator provided a note of reasons to explain in detail why he decided not to lead any evidence on charges, all of which had been denied by the bishop. The consequence of that decision, set out in the published note of reasons, led directly to the lifting of the bishop’s suspension.
“This is a manifestation of due process and independent decision-making. The process ended at that point. The procurator’s decision was an impartial determination, regardless of any individual’s personal view of the matter.
“Support was made available throughout and direct offers of support were also made. Those offers will not necessarily have been taken up. If any parties require support, it remains available and can be requested.”
