Other Links

1.1 You have just agreed to be a member of an Assembly Commission for the Hearing of a case against a Minister and are anxious to learn more about the role you will be called upon to play. These Guidelines are designed to help you.

1.2 In your briefcase – the documents which are the tools you need as a member of the Assembly Commission are:

It goes without saying that you must study all the papers in the case very carefully, but you must put out of your mind any information which may reach you from any outside source.

1.3 It cannot be emphasised too strongly that everything which happens throughout the whole process is strictly confidential (see Paragraph A.4 of Part II). Section O Hearings are conducted in private (see Paragraph E.12.1 of Part II) and, while the case is continuing, you must under no circumstances make any public comment or discuss any aspect of the case with anyone other than your colleagues on the Assembly Commission or the Secretary of the Commission. To do so would prejudice the chance of a fair hearing (see Paragraph A.4 of Part II). Even after the case has been concluded, unguarded comments can be damaging to people connected with the case and must at all costs be avoided.

1.4 Throughout the Section O Process many words and phrases are used which have special meanings in the context of Section O. These are all set out in Paragraph 3 of Part I and you must study that Paragraph and make sure that you understand those meanings. Several occur in these Guidelines, in particular ‘Mandated Group’, ‘Initial Enquiry Stage’, ‘Commission Stage’, ‘Referral Notice’, ‘Parties’, ‘Assembly Commission’.

1.5.1 The word ‘Convener’ is used to denote two different roles within the Section O Process, i.e. the Convener of the Commission Panel and the Convener of the Assembly Commission. The former is appointed by General Assembly under Paragraph 4.3 of Part I and s/he and his/her deputy must appoint five Panel Members to the Assembly Commission for the hearing of each case.

They must also appoint one of those to be the Convener of the Assembly Commission for that case (see Paragraph C.5 of Part II). That person will take the chair at the Hearing and is likely to be consulted from time to time by the Secretary of the Assembly Commission on procedural issues.

1.5.2 Having completed the appointments to the Assembly Commission, the Convener and Deputy Convener of the Commission Panel have as such no further part to play, although either or both of them may, as members of the Commission Panel, serve as members of the Assembly Commission for that case.

1.6 There are two stages to Section O, the ‘Initial Enquiry Stage’ and the ‘Commission Stage’. You have no part to play in the Initial Enquiry Stage. Indeed a Mandated Group will sometimes decide that there is no case, or insufficient evidence, to take the matter beyond the Initial Enquiry and into the Commission Stage. You will only come into existence as an Assembly Commission if and when a Mandated Group believes that there is a prima facie case for the Minister to answer and issues a Referral Notice. The case enters the Commission Stage at that point.

1.7 You have two distinct roles to play during the Commission Stage. During the first of these the Mandated Group will be carrying out a more detailed investigation than was possible at the Initial Enquiry Stage and they will also be preparing for the Hearing. Your role as members of the Assembly Commission is explained in Section 3 of these Guidelines. The second part of the Commission Stage is the formal Hearing and this is dealt with at Sections 4 and 5 of these Guidelines.

2.1 The need to observe the Rules of Natural Justice runs right through the Section O Process from its inception with the calling in of the Mandated Group to the reaching of the final decision (whether or not on appeal). Some years ago a learned Judge expressed the concept of Natural Justice in the following terms, which still hold good today:

2.2 The right to know “the nature of the accusation made” extends to the right to challenge the evidence brought to support the accusation. These safeguards are built into the Process, but you must be constantly on your guard to ensure that they are fully applied.

2.3 Natural Justice requires a fair and impartial hearing. Because of this and the risk of conflict of interest the Convener and Deputy Convener of the Commission Panel must not appoint as a member of an Assembly Commission anyone who is a member of any local church, District Council or Synod connected with the case or who has any other involvement (see particularly Paragraph 7 of Part 1).

2.4 The Minister and all other persons involved in the Disciplinary Process must at all times be treated fairly and with all due courtesy and consideration and the proceedings, although formal in nature, should not be intimidating.

3.1 Much of the work during this period will fall upon the Secretary and Convener of the Assembly Commission. The Secretary of the Assembly Commission must ensure that all the procedural steps are taken at the right times (see in particular Section E of Part II), dealing with all enquiries and consulting the Convener of the Assembly Commission on matters requiring procedural decisions. Sometimes they may also consult you all. The extent of these consultations must be a matter of judgment for them.

3.2 In the interests of natural justice, each party has the right to know the other party’s case before the Hearing, including the names of witnesses to be called (see Paragraphs E.3 and E.4 of Part II). This is bound to take some time and involve some paperwork. Yet at the same time the Process must be kept moving and unnecessary red tape avoided. The Secretary and Convener must constantly keep the balance between these two important principles.

3.3 The following Paragraphs give examples of some of the matters on which procedural decisions may have to be taken. After the parties have lodged their original statements they may wish to introduce new evidence, which may arise from the evidence introduced by the other party or as a result of new information which comes to light (see Paragraphs E.5.1 and E.16.3 of Part II). Provided that the other party is made aware of it and it is relevant to the case, the new evidence should normally be admitted. This may sometimes involve a postponement of the Hearing to give the other party the chance to consider it. You, as the Assembly Commission, have a discretion in these matters (see Paragraph E.6. of Part II).

3.4 It is a principle of natural justice that, if a party wishes to bring evidence to support that party’s case, the other party should be given the right to challenge that evidence by cross-examination. Therefore, unless a witness’s evidence is undisputed and agreed beforehand, s/he should attend the Hearing to give evidence in person.

3.5 However, you do have a discretion to dispense with the personal attendance of a witness and there may be exceptional circumstances where it would be right to exercise that discretion, but only sparingly (see Paragraph E.5.1.2 of Part II). Proper examples of the occasional exercise of that discretion might be where the witness is (i) old or infirm and unable to travel to the Hearing or (ii) abroad or (iii) unwilling for strong personal reasons to attend or (iv) a child or young person. You would have to consider any such request very carefully.

3.6 You can also direct that statements, videos, other recordings or transcripts of that evidence should be produced at the Hearing (see Paragraph E.5.1.2 of Part II). However in those circumstances you would have to exercise very great care in deciding how much weight to attach to that evidence, bearing in mind that the other party will have been unable to challenge it by direct cross-examination at the Hearing.

3.7 On reviewing all the pre-hearing papers, you may invite the parties to agree any evidence which is not controversial so as to save time and witness attendance at the Hearing (See Paragraph E.5.1 of Part II).

3.8 You must not gather factual evidence in the case, except that you may call persons with expert specialist knowledge to give evidence at the Hearing under Paragraph E.5.2 of Part II. Examples might be in the fields of medicine or psychology, although it is envisaged that this procedure would only be invoked occasionally. The parties must be notified if you wish any such persons to attend the Hearing, and written reports received beforehand from such persons should, with their permission, be supplied to the parties prior to the Hearing.

3.9.1 You may occasionally be asked to hear a case where the Minister is subject to criminal investigation, and indeed criminal charges may have already been brought against him/her. Where any of the matters set out in Paragraph E.7.2 of Part II are involved, it would be wrong for you to conduct a Section O Hearing and attempt to reach a decision based on evidence still sub judice in a criminal court. Accordingly you must adjourn the Section O proceedings under Paragraph E.7 of Part II and await the outcome of the criminal process. The Secretary of the Assembly Commission will notify the Minister of the compulsory adjournment, and will inform the Mandated Group also, so that it can adjourn its investigation for the same period. (See Paragraphs D.4 and E.7.1 of Part II) The purpose of the adjournment is to allow the criminal prosecution (if it proceeds) to take its course.

3.9.2 Now a word of explanation about Paragraph E.7.5. In criminal cases, the Courts have the power to subpoena witnesses to attend Court in person to give evidence. Furthermore, in cases involving physical abuse or violence, the police will most likely have carried out a detailed investigation, possibly involving medical examinations of witnesses. It must also be remembered that the standard of proof in criminal cases is “beyond reasonable doubt” rather than simply “on the balance of probabilities” which is the civil standard adopted by the Church for the Section O Process (see Paragraph E.16.1.2 of Part II). Therefore under Paragraph E.7.5 if a guilty verdict is reached against a Minister in a criminal case, the conduct which constituted the offence resulting in that guilty verdict is, for the purposes of the Section O Process, taken as having been committed without the Mandated Group having to present before you as the Assembly Commission the evidence which led to the criminal verdict. This is so even if the Minister should attempt at the Section O Hearing to assert his/her innocence of the criminal charges.

3.9.3 Having said that, however, - and this is extremely important – the Church’s Disciplinary code is quite distinct from the criminal proceedings. Therefore, even though a Minister may be found guilty on a criminal charge (so that certain conduct would be assumed to have been committed), this should not of itself automatically lead to a decision to delete his/her name from the roll under Section O. Conversely, if the Minister is acquitted on a criminal charge, this does not necessarily mean the end of the case against him/her under the Section O Process. The reason for this is that the criminal law is not founded primarily on a code of Christian ethics, but on the need to protect law-abiding members of society and to provide a sanction against those who break the law. On the other hand the Church’s Disciplinary Process is directly based on the Minister’s promises at ordination to lead a holy life and to act in such a way as to preserve the unity and peace of the Church (see Paragraph 9 of Part I and Paragraph 2 of Schedule E to the Basis of Union). In many situations, of course, the same result will be achieved whichever criterion is applied, but neither the Mandated Group, nor the Minister nor you as the Assembly Commission must assume that this will always be the case. Therefore, once a criminal case has been resolved, either by being withdrawn or by a decision one way or the other, the Church’s disciplinary proceedings must be resumed, the investigation continued by the Mandated Group and the case brought to a Hearing before you (see Paragraph E.7.4 of Part II).

3.9.4 The question has been asked as to whether you should attend the criminal trial relevant to that case. No – you must not do this. You are not investigators and the gathering of evidence is not your business. You are sitting as an independent Commission and must reach your decision only upon the evidence which the parties place before you.

3.9.5 During the period of postponement while the criminal case is being dealt with, it is the responsibility of the Mandated Group to monitor the progress of the criminal investigation against the Minister (see Paragraph D.4 of Part II).

3.9.6 When the criminal case is finally resolved, it is the Mandated Group’s responsibility to obtain a duly certified Court record or memorandum of the decision and pass it to the Secretary of the Assembly Commission (see Paragraph E.7.4 of Part II). However, the Secretary of the Assembly Commission should also check the position from time to time, because, as soon as the criminal case (or criminal investigation if the matter does not proceed to trial) has been resolved, the Church’s procedures under Section O must immediately be resumed.

3.10 Once a case has passed into the Commission Stage, it must proceed to a formal Hearing, subject only to the Paragraph E.9.2 exception mentioned in the next paragraph.

3.11 Sometimes there may seem at first sight to be a sufficiently strong case against the Minister, but when the Mandated Group investigates further, it may become apparent that the evidence is unreliable or not as substantial as at first appeared. In this event, it would be open to the Mandated Group to notify the Secretary of the Assembly Commission, preferably in advance of the Hearing, that as a result of its investigation it no longer considered there to be a case for deletion and to request that the Minister’s name be retained on the roll. If such a request is received, you, as the Assembly Commission, may, entirely at your own discretion, invoke the special procedure set out in Paragraph E.9.2 of Part II and bring the case to a conclusion without a formal hearing.

3.12 A further possibility is that, although satisfied from its investigation that a breach of ministerial discipline has occurred, the Mandated Group may not think the breach sufficiently serious to justify deletion from the roll. Also mitigating factors may exist and the Mandated Group may consider that in the circumstances a written warning would be sufficient. If so, it may, preferably in advance of the Hearing, ask you, should you find the case proved, to issue a formal warning to the Minister under Paragraph 10.2 of Part I, rather than to delete the Minister’s name from the roll.

3.13 However, whilst you will doubtless consider any such request from the Mandated Group under Paragraph 3.11 or Paragraph 3.12 above, this can have persuasive force only and you do not have to comply with it as the final decision rests entirely with you. In such a case a formal Hearing must take place.

4.1 The responsibility for the detailed practical arrangements for the Hearing itself and for making sure that things get under way smoothly will fall upon the Secretary and the Convener. You will need to listen carefully to the information and instructions which are given so that you understand fully the nature of the proceedings in which you have an important part to play.

4.2 The case proceeds in a set order. After introducing him/herself and you as the other members of the Assembly Commission and explaining the roles of the Secretary and the legal adviser, the Convener will invite the spokesperson for the Mandated Group to make the opening statement and the Hearing will continue as laid down in Paragraph E.13 of Part II. The Convener will decide at what point any person attending the Hearing under Paragraph E.5.2 shall give evidence.

4.3 During the Hearing each of you is entitled to ask questions of the witnesses, but, to avoid constant interruptions, you should, before the Hearing opens, agree a procedure for this – possibly directing all questions through the Convener.

4.4 As the case proceeds, you should be paying keen attention both to the importance and relevance of the evidence itself and also to the general demeanour of the witnesses giving that evidence, so as to gain some impression of their reliability. Both these factors will be crucial to the decision to be taken later, in which each one of you as a member of the Assembly Commission must play your part.

4.5 Here are some procedural issues which might arise. The Secretary and the Convener will in the main be responsible for handling them, but you too need to be aware of them:

4.5.1 The Minister may decline to give evidence. If so, s/he or his/her spokesperson may address you by way of argument and may comment on the Mandated Group’s evidence. However, s/he loses the right to ‘prove’ any matters on which s/he wishes to rely. The reason for this is that s/he can bring facts to support his/her defence only if prepared to give evidence and thus to submit to questioning by the spokesperson for the Mandated Group.

4.5.2 If the Minister refuses to give evidence and tries to assert facts, the Convener must intervene to exclude those assertions and to explain why. If the Minister should then decide to give evidence, s/he may assert those facts and then be open to questioning about them.

4.5.3 What happens if the Minister maintains his/her refusal to give evidence? S/he cannot be compelled to do so. However if s/he continues to assert facts after intervention by the Convener, not only will the Convener rule these out of order but may, after consultation with you as the other members of the Commission, refer the Minister to Paragraph E.8.3 of Part II and warn him/her that the continued assertion of facts coupled with the refusal to give evidence will amount to an obstruction of the procedure, a factor which you can take into account in considering your decision later.

4.5.4 Even when the Minister chooses not to give evidence him/herself, s/he may still call witnesses to challenge the Mandated Group’s case. Those witnesses would of course be subject to questioning by the spokesperson for the Mandated Group.

4.5.5 If the Minister fails to attend the Hearing without offering a satisfactory explanation, you may proceed with the Hearing. The Minister’s non-attendance is a factor which you can take into account when considering your decision (see Paragraph E.8.2 of Part II). If the Hearing proceeds without the Minister, you should weigh the allegations carefully against any documentary evidence submitted by him/her, bearing in mind of course that the Mandated Group were unable to question the Minister about it.

4.5.6 Written statements, videos, transcripts etc can in exceptional circumstances be admitted as evidence at your discretion, but always with the important proviso that you would need to consider how much weight to attach to them if the person providing that evidence is not present to be questioned directly.

4.5.7 As well as oral evidence from individual witnesses, the parties may produce documentary evidence such as certified copy minutes of meetings, letters, receipts, etc. These are acceptable so long as they have been disclosed to you and to the other party beforehand.

4.5.8 Sometimes new issues may be introduced during the Hearing. If these are irrelevant to the subject matter of the case, the Convener should rule that they be disregarded, unless they tend to reveal an underlying serious situation previously undisclosed, such as some indication that a criminal offence might have been committed. In that case the Convener will immediately adjourn the Hearing and seek advice from the Secretary and the legal adviser.

4.5.9 If the new issues do have a bearing on the case, the Convener should adjourn the Hearing to give the other party the chance of considering them. S/he should consult you about this, so that you can decide whether the case can continue after a short break or whether, exceptionally, the Hearing should be adjourned to a later date.

4.5.10 You should not lightly interfere in the questioning of the Minister or of any of the witnesses. However the Convener may sometimes disallow questions which are put to the minister or any of the witnesses. S/he should do so where the questions are irrelevant to the matters in issue or offensive in the way they are framed or unnecessarily repetitive.

4.5.11 There is often a temptation for the Minister or his/her spokesperson or the spokesperson for the Mandated Group to ‘lead’ witnesses who are there to give evidence in support of their case. This arises when a question is framed in such a way as to give a broad hint to the person being questioned as to the reply which the questioner is anticipating and hoping to receive. The Convener should immediately disallow the question and insist that the questioner rephrases the question in a neutral way so as not to give any indication of the answer which s/he is hoping to receive. You must all be alert to this and be prepared to call the Convener’s attention to any question which you believe falls foul of this or the preceding Paragraph.

4.5.12 You must disregard any information based on allegations against the Minister which were considered at an earlier Assembly Commission, unless at the hearing of the previous case a written warning was issued relating to those issues (see Paragraph E.16.2 of Part II). Otherwise the Convener should rule out of order any attempt to introduce any such matter at any stage of the proceedings.

4.6 When the parties have presented their cases and made their final submissions, the Convener will conclude the Hearing and ask the parties to leave the room. They will of course want to know the decision as soon as possible, but it is important that you as members of the Assembly Commission have as much time as you need to weigh the evidence fully and meticulously to reach the correct decision. Too much is at stake for you to be hurried! So at this point the Convener will announce that the decision will not be given that day but that written notification will be given to both parties within 10 days of the decision being reached (see Paragraphs E.18 and F.3.1 of Part II).

4.7 The Secretary and the legal adviser will also leave the room at this point to enable you to consider your decision in complete privacy. They will however remain on hand in the building to assist with any explanations as to procedure or as to the wording of Section O. However their function, if they are consulted in this way, is purely advisory and they do not play any part in the reaching of the decision.

5.1 In approaching your task, you must remember that the burden of proving the case against the minister falls upon the Mandated Group (see Paragraph E.16.1.1 of Part II) and that the standard of proof required is the standard set for civil cases of ‘balance of probability’, not the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (see Paragraph E.16.1.2 of Part II).

5.2 The first stage of the decision-making process must be a detailed and painstaking assessment of the evidence and the witnesses. Each piece of evidence should be put under the microscope. Can it be relied on as part of the body of facts on which you have to base your decision? Do the parties agree about it? If they disagree, what have their witnesses said about it? What does the documentary evidence suggest? On the balance of probability, which version is the more likely? If you feel so undecided the minister is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

5.3 How reliable are the witnesses? Here are some factors which might affect a witness’s credibility – his/her emotional state, some degree of personal animosity, inconsistencies in the information given, a witness saying, quite simply, that, whilst believing that such and such happened, s/he cannot be absolutely sure.

5.4 Having carefully sifted all the information before you, you must next discard any which you consider to be unreliable, irrelevant or trivial. You are then left with the reliable, relevant and significant evidence and it is upon this that you must reach your decision.

5.5 Now – the decision itself. At this stage take time to remind yourselves particularly of the Basis of Union, Schedule C (Affirmations made by Minister at Ordination and Induction), Schedule D (Statement concerning the nature, faith and order of the United Reformed Church), Schedule E, Paragraph 2 (Ministers’ duties in relation to Schedules C and D) and of Section O Part I, Paragraphs 9 (reference to Basis of Union), 10 (your decision) and 16 (recording your decision) and Part II, Paragraphs E.16.1.1 (burden of proof), E.16.1.2 (standard of proof) and F.1.1/F.1.4 (also relates to the reaching and recording of your decision).

5.6 The fundamental question which you must ask is this – taking account of both the burden and the standard of proof referred to in the last paragraph, does the reliable, relevant and significant evidence against the Minister lead you to the conclusion that s/he has broken either or both of the promises given at ordination to lead a holy life and/or to preserve the unity and peace of the Church? If the answer to that question is ‘no’, then - end of story - the decision must be to retain the name of the Minister on the roll.

5.7 If, however, the answer is ‘yes’, you are saying that a breach of discipline has occurred. Therefore you cannot simply dismiss the case and decide to retain the Minister’s name on the roll - and nothing more (see Paragraph 10.2 of Part I). You then have a further question to consider – do you believe that the breach of discipline is so serious that the minister’s name must be deleted from the roll or would a written warning be sufficient?

5.8 To go down the ‘written warning’ route, you have to be satisfied either that the breach, although proven, is not serious or that, if it is, mitigating factors exist which would justify giving the minister a second chance? Examples are given in Paragraph F.1.2 of Part II, but you need to be extremely wary of placing too much weight on mitigating factors in cases where violence or abuse or both have been proved because of the overriding need to protect vulnerable people in the future.

5.10.1 In the cases of retention, with or without a written warning, you may, if you wish, add recommendations to your decision which you think might be helpful to those in the church who are likely to be involved in the minister’s future ministry (see Paragraph 16.1 3 of Part I).

5.10.2 Two points to note here. One is that, unlike the written warning mentioned Paragraph 5.9(b) above, these recommendations are not part of the actual decision and do not have to be followed.

5.10.3 Secondly, the recommendations must relate to the minister’s future ministry. You have no brief through this process of recommendations to make suggestions or critical comments about any other aspect of the church’s life, even though you think they have a bearing on the present case. If any of you should feel strongly enough that you would like to make known any such concerns, the proper course is to wait until the case has been concluded (which would include the hearing of any appeal) and then to communicate those concerns to the Convener or Secretary of the Assembly Commission who will pass them on for consideration either to the Advisory Group or exceptionally to the General Secretary. The Minister and others involved in the case are entitled to confidentiality (see Paragraph A.4 of Part II). You must therefore express your concerns in general terms without naming anyone involved.

5.11 In the case of deletion, you are asked to include guidance as to any restrictions which ought to be placed on the minister becoming involved with any church-related activities after deletion (see Paragraph 16.1.4 of Part I). N.B. This guidance is not part of the decision itself; it is guidance only.

5.12 Paragraph 16 of Part I explains how you should record your decision. The record must be clearly worded, it must satisfy the requirements in that Paragraph and it must not contain extraneous material.

5.13 Although the Secretary and the legal adviser are not present when the actual decision is reached, you may whilst you are still all together in session consult them as to the actual wording of the record of the decision. Note the important distinction here. They must not influence you in the actual decision, but once you have reached that decision, you may consult them as to the phraseology to be used in the wording of the record of the decision. In the interests of all concerned, it is imperative that the record is properly worded and that it fully complies with Paragraphs 10 and 16 of Part I – this cannot be overstressed!

5.14 The making and recording of the decision as previously explained conclude your involvement.