What follows is the submission which was made to the President of Tribunals regarding the Children's Furniture at St Mary the Virgin, Maulden. It has been slightly redacted (a) to remove the various references made to documents which accompanied the original submission (sometimes replaced with "evidenced elsewhere") and (b) by having the names of other parties shortened to initials only.

The Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) dictates that a submission can only been made to the President of Tribunals to explain why the Bishop's decision to take no action in a CDM case is plainly wrong. This is why this document is worded as it is.

What follows are facts which can be fully supported by written documents which can be placed in the public domain at any time if neccessary. 

In the face of this self-evident misconduct, the assertions of which are supported at every stage by documentary and photographic evidence, that the (Deputy) President of Tribunals did not remit this matter back to the Bishop can only lead one to conclude that, rather than see justice carried out, the Church's primary objective is to protect its own.

The Submission...

1. Introduction 

1.1. The Bishop’s decision to take no further action is based, in part, on his rejection of a number of specific allegations. I believe the Bishop is wholly wrong, in the light of the evidence presented to him (to which I draw your attention in this document) to concur with the Registrar that all but two of the specific allegations do not, in his opinion, constitute misconduct as defined by the Clergy Discipline Measure.  

1.2. Having asked the Respondent to respond regarding all of the allegations, the Bishop was then wrong in his decision not to scrutinise all the evidence so presented to him. For the reasons which I set out herewith, if he had done so, he must have reached a decision other than to take no further action, a decision which is plainly wrong, based on this evidence. 

1.3. In the Registrar’s Preliminary Scrutiny Report in the context of alleged assurances made, the Registrar states “A deliberate and calculated misrepresentation of the proposals to potential objectors would, in my view, have the potential for actionable misconduct under the Measure”. By the same token, actionable misconduct would equally apply if such a deliberate misrepresentation of the proposals were made to other parties. This is precisely what the evidence clearly shows; it supports - as set out herewith - my allegations that the Respondent deliberately and calculatingly misled, or sought to mislead, the DAC, the Chancellor and others and this is why the Bishop’s decision to take no action is manifestly wrong.  

2. The Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) 

2.1. The initial communications by the Respondent to the DAC on 18 July, 2016 state “The PCC would like to buy a blue plastic table and 4 blue chairs to put in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday morning” and “We do not need to remove anything as there are already chair (sic) in the Lady Chapel which we can move to make it a children’s corner on a Sunday”. Therefore, the basis on which the DAC was informed about the proposals and, thus, the basis upon which it deliberated and made its decision not to object to the proposals (but not to “recommend” them, as is usual) was that the furniture would only be placed in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday morning. This is evidenced by the subsequent Notification of Advice which refers to this letter (“as described in a letter from Revd (sic) Canon Lynda Klimas”), which has also been specifically referenced in the resultant Faculty dated 18 November 2016. This point, which is of key importance as explained below, has been entirely overlooked by the Bishop when reaching his decision. 

2.2. The matter of the wording of this initial approach to the DAC is of key importance in supporting my allegation that the Respondent deliberately misled the DAC because, as the Respondent’s evidence states “As the minutes of the meeting on 29 June states (sic) ‘permission will be needed to install the furniture in the church’. There was no mention of the vestry and DG seconded the proposal. If the PCC intended to put the furniture in a vestry there would have been no need to apply for a Faculty”. The Respondent is relying on this evidence to assert that there was no intention at that time (i.e. 29 June) for the furniture “to be put in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday morning”, as the Respondent deliberately misrepresented to the DAC later (on 18 July). Rather, the Respondent is asserting that it was known on 29 June that the furniture was to remain in place there all the time, save when the area is required for other uses, thereby creating a “children’s corner” (although, as already stated, the reference is to “a children’s corner on a Sunday”).  

2.3. The reliability of interpreting the PCC Minute in this way is examined at 3 below but if the Bishop had scrutinised this matter and agreed with the Respondent’s interpretation, he may also have drawn support from the Respondent’s response to the Registrar’s Preliminary Scrutiny Report where she states “The PCC minutes of 29 June 2016 state ‘in the church’. There was no mention of the furniture being stored elsewhere”. The Respondent, in turn, relies in support of this assertion on the Witness Statement of SN, Deputy Churchwarden, which sates “It was thought that we would need an Archdeacon’s letter but because they were not going to be permanently placed [i.e. the furniture was portable] we were told that we needed a Faculty so they could be moved whenever was needed. The plan was we would need to move them whenever that area was needed for other things that happened in church”.  

2.4. From this evidence it is clear that the decision had already been taken NOT to place the furniture in the Lady Chapel only on Sundays for the service held on that day. These plans, as attested to by Mrs N, were well before the Respondent’s original communication to the DAC, dated 18 July 2016, stating that the furniture would only be placed there on Sundays. It is apparent, therefore, that the Respondent deliberately and calculatingly misrepresented the proposals to the DAC, thereby indisputably confirming my allegation that she indeed deliberately misled the DAC, which was not told the truth about this matter from the outset. The Bishop is wrong to ignore this actionable misconduct when reaching his decision. 

2.5. This deliberate misrepresentation of the proposals to the DAC is further evidenced by the witness statement of WS in which she asserts she was told by the Respondent that the table and chairs “would be removed for Wednesday Holy Communion”; in other words that they would remain in the Lady Chapel at all other times but be removed from there on Wednesday mornings. This is in direct contradiction to the application to the DAC by the Respondent (and, incidentally, in direct contradiction to the evidence elsewhere). Also, the Respondent’s statement provides details of the meeting on 5 September she held with PS and Mrs S. In the Bishop’s words, at this meeting she “indicates that she conveyed to them the assurance that the furniture would be moved elsewhere for the weekly Wednesday communion service”, which is manifestly NOT what the Respondent represented to the DAC. 

2.6. Moreover, this deliberate misrepresentation by the Respondent to the DAC is actually perpetuated, as evidenced. In an e-mail to the DAC dated as late as 29 November 2016 the Respondent states “On Sundays books and toys are put there for young children to play with. All we want to do is to add a table and four chairs for children to do some colouring etc. We will also use the furniture at our weekly tiny tots sing along group” (which group was not in existence at the time of the lodging of the original Faculty petition; it started in October 2016 as evidenced elsewhere. It is clear from this that the Respondent is advising the DAC that the table and chairs are only going to be placed in the location for use during the Sunday service and the Tuesday tiny tots group. Again, this is a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation of the position to the DAC because by 29 November 2016 the children’s furniture had already been placed in the Lady Chapel permanently (save for Wednesday mornings), i.e. it was NOT - completely contrary to what the DAC was continuing to be told - being intentionally placed in there for use on Sundays (as per the original application and the subsequent Faculty) and, by then, briefly on Tuesdays too; it was in truth remaining in the location all the time.  

2.7. In the Respondent’s letter (in response to the objections) to the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, the Respondent writes “It has never been in our plans for this furniture to be permanent”. Whilst at first sight this might be seen as supporting what the DAC had been told, i.e. that the furniture would only be put out on Sundays, this statement is actually made in the context of the furniture being “light and easily moveable”. In the same letter the Respondent states: “The children’s furniture will need to be moved on a Wednesday morning for our regular communion service. The proposal is to put it in the choir vestry”. This is further evidence that what the DAC was told right at the start of the process and continued to be told in November 2016 was a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. It is, accordingly, clear from the evidence submitted to the Bishop, which he was wrong to ignore or reject when reaching his decision, that there was and never had been any intention for the furniture “to be put in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday morning”, as represented to the DAC, because if that were the case it would never be in place there on a Wednesday needing to be moved out. 

2.8. The Respondent also fails to inform the DAC that the planned location for the furniture is not simply an unused, convenient space in church but an area which is actually used for worship at least six times a week and at other times (as stated elsewhere and attested to by JM), which information the DAC could not reasonably be expected to know. This omission is unimportant if what the DAC had been told was true, i.e. that the intention was to place the children’s furniture in the location on a Sunday, during the main service, because on this basis the usage of the same area for worship (and, indeed, for other things) at other times is irrelevant because the table and chairs would not be present in that area at these other times. However, as evidenced above, this was never the Respondent’s plan and by the time she communicated with the DAC she already had no intention of placing the furniture in the location just on Sundays. Accordingly, this omission takes on a far greater importance in that it actually supports the allegation of misrepresentation of the facts by the Respondent to the DAC. 

2.9. In her evidence to the Bishop, the Respondent states “The church is open every day and so the table shows visitors that children are most welcome and provides a facility for them”. Mrs M, too, states “Their presence signals to visitors, the church is open each day, that parents and children have a space in our church which welcomes them”. I do not dispute these sentiments but my contention, which the Bishop has been plainly wrong not to take into account when reaching his decision, is that the children’s furniture being on display in the Lady Chapel every day is NOT what the application to the DAC, resulting in the Faculty, was for, the true plans having been completely misrepresented by the Respondent.  

2.10. In summary it is absolutely apparent, supported by the evidence submitted to the Bishop, that the DAC was deliberately misled both from the outset (in other words the DAC Notification of Advice and the Faculty were sought and obtained under false pretences) and on a continuing basis (by virtue of the 29 November e-mail). The true intention of permanent display and availability of the furniture was deliberately and calculatingly misrepresented - and continued to be misrepresented - to the DAC. The Bishop is wholly wrong not to take this deliberate and calculated misrepresentation - which is actionable misconduct - into account when considering this matter and reaching his final decision. 

3. The Faculty Co-Petitioner 

3.1. The Bishop appears entirely to have overlooked the evidence I have submitted. This is plainly wrong. Mr DG is not merely a casual observer of these matters but, as Churchwarden at the time, he was a co-petitioner to the Faculty petition for the children’s furniture. This e-mail of 24 November 2016 sets out the basis on which he supported the petition. He states “I saw the proposal of the table and chairs simply as a bright area for the occupation of small children to read and draw biblically based subject matter during services under the supervision of their parents. The furniture to be set aside in the Vestry at all other times”. The proposal described in these terms is entirely consistent with the application to the DAC, i.e. that the furniture would only be placed in the Lady Chapel “on a Sunday”, the corollary being that it would clearly be placed elsewhere at all other times. Indeed, when signing the Faculty petition, it is entirely reasonable to expect that Mr G saw the communication of 18 July 2016 to the DAC, as this is one of the key documents supporting the Faculty petition, having been stamped by the DAC on 4 August 2016 and, as already stated, referenced as a supporting document in the DAC Notification of Advice and in the Faculty.  

3.2. The understanding that the furniture, when not in the Lady Chapel on Sundays, would be stored elsewhere is further support of the gravity of the deliberate and calculated misrepresentation by the Respondent referred to in 2 above. As already stated and as attested to by the Respondent and Mrs N, the plan had, in fact, never been to place the furniture in the Lady Chapel only on Sundays but rather to keep it there at all times, except on the occasions when the Lady Chapel was required for other purposes. By virtue of extending the misrepresentation of the true position to Mr G, he was effectively induced to sign and lodge the Faculty petition as a co-petitioner under false pretences. The signing by Mr G and the lodging of the Faculty papers was, of course, carried out after the original submission to the DAC (because the DAC first had to return the submission with its Notification of Advice and the submitted papers, duly stamped), so this misrepresentation by the Respondent of the true intentions continued to be perpetuated when the Faculty papers were signed by Mr G. The Bishop is wrong not to take this point into consideration when reaching his decision. 

3.3. Further, the Bishop is wrong not to have scrutinised the submitted evidence closely in this regard when reaching his decision. The Respondent seeks to disentangle and distance herself from what was deliberate and calculated misrepresentation made by her, as follows:

(i) The Respondent seeks to infer that Mr G must have understood, when seconding the proposals at the PCC meeting on 29 June 2016, that the furniture was to remain in the Lady Chapel all the times because there was no mention in the PCC minutes of the “vestry”. This is to assume that the minutes record the full extent of the discussion, which of course - as with all such minutes - they do not. Further, even if the Respondent’s suggestion happens to be true that the word “vestry” was not mentioned in the discussions, Mr G clearly understood when he seconded the PCC resolution that the furniture, when not in the Lady Chapel, would be stored somewhere (this is self evident and applies equally whenever the Lady Chapel is in use for other purposes) and it seems entirely reasonable to assume that this storage would be in the vestry. Indeed the Respondent herself states that when the furniture is moved out of the area “The proposal is to put it in the choir vestry”. 

(ii)  The Respondent continues: “If the PCC intended to put the furniture in a (sic) vestry there would have been no need to apply for a Faculty” but this is an entirely misleading statement because, as attested to by the respondent in the same document “I assumed that I would need an Archdeacon’s letter of authority” (rather than a Faculty). It was, in fact, not until 3 August that the Respondent knew that she “would need to apply for a Faculty”. As already alluded to at 2.3, the statement of Mrs N “It was thought that we would need an Archdeacon’s letter” supports the Respondent’s statement. Thus it was understood at the time of the PCC Resolution that only an Archdeacon’s Letter of Authority was required, not a full Faculty (which, incidentally, is the reason why I abstained from the PCC vote, rather than voting against the proposal, because there is no mechanism formally to object to an Archdeacon’s Letter of Authority). 

(iii) As the Respondent correctly points out, the PCC Minutes do indeed state “Permission will be needed to install the furniture in the church” but the Respondent seeks to suggest this means the furniture was to remain in church and was not to be stored in the vestry to be put out when needed. However, this is itself a deceitful interpretation because, wherever the furniture was to be stored when not in use, permission (which covers both an Archdeacon’s Letter of Authority or a Faculty) would still be needed to introduce it into the church in the first place, because the vestry is part of the consecrated church and is included in and is subject to the Faculty Jurisdiction in the same way as the remainder of the church building. 

(iv) However, most important of all in the PCC Minutes - on which the Respondent now endeavours to rely in her defence - is that it states absolutely clearly “Furniture for the children to use during services was discussed”. It is an entirely reasonable and appropriate supposition to derive from this statement that, when there are no services, the furniture will NOT be available to use in the Lady Chapel. Indeed, the PCC Minute, as worded, was supplied to the DAC in the original application to support the letters which state that the furniture will be put in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday. As explained in 2 above, this was a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation of the proposals, as attested to in the evidence submitted to the Bishop. 

3.4. Thus, the Bishop is plainly wrong not to have considered the important matter of the evidence of Mr G and not to have taken this into account when making his decision, as it is apparent from the evidence submitted that the misrepresentation discussed at 2 above was being extended to Mr G

 as one of the Faculty co-petitioners (and that the Respondent now recognises this, given her convoluted attempts to place the PCC Minute of 29 June in an entirely false light).

4. The Chancellor  

4.1. As has been made clear above, the Respondent, Mrs N and Mrs S have attested that there were never any plans only to put the furniture in the Lady Chapel on Sundays and these assertions support my allegations that the DAC was deliberately misled. They also support my allegation that the position was similarly and deliberately misrepresented to the Chancellor (the Judge in the Consistory Court) because the papers lodged with the Court in support of the Faculty petition include (i) the correspondence stamped by the DAC on 4 August 2016 stating that the furniture will be placed in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday and (ii) the PCC Minute stamped by the DAC on 4 August 2016 which states “Furniture for children to use during services”. The Respondent is here presenting to the Chancellor an entirely false position, as nowhere is there a statement made by her countering or expanding these proposals and explaining that, in fact, the plans were always - contrary to the documentation lodged - to keep the furniture in the Lady Chapel all the time (save when that area is needed for other purposes). This is indisputably deliberate and calculated misrepresentation, being actionable misconduct under the Measure and the Bishop was wrong to ignore this when reaching his decision. 

4.2. The Chancellor had the opportunity to try to discern the true intentions of the Respondent, i.e. for the furniture to be on display in the Lady Chapel and available there every day, only because I objected to the proposals and the Respondent was thereby obliged to respond to my objections. Even then she did not expressly state to the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, her true intentions but merely wrote “The children’s furniture will need to be moved on a Wednesday morning”, thereby leaving it entirely up to the Chancellor to infer (or not) that the furniture would not, in fact, be placed in the Lady Chapel only on Sundays. Her wording is deliberately calculated to obfuscate and for the Bishop not to take this into account when considering the Respondent’s deliberate attempt not present the true intentions clearly to the Chancellor is plainly wrong.   

4.3. There has also been a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation made by the Respondent to the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, with regard to the status of the Lady Chapel which is explained in 5 below. The Bishop is plainly wrong not to take these most serious misrepresentations into account when reaching his decision.  

4.4. In addition, there has been a deliberate and calculated withholding of information by the Respondent to the Chancellor (and to the DAC) regarding the historical sensitivities of the Lady Chapel. This is explained in 6 below. The Bishop is wrong not to have considered this point when reaching his decision.  

4.5. Further, there has been a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation made by the Respondent to the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, regarding the position at Flitwick, which is explained in 7 below. For the Bishop not to take account of this misrepresentation is wrong. 

5. The Lady Chapel 

5.1. The fundamental reason why the placing of the furniture discussed above on an “as needed” or largely “permanent” basis is so important is because of the location within the church in which it was to be/now is situated. This location is not directly comparable to the situations highlighted by the Respondent in Flitwick and elsewhere (discussed in 7 below); at Maulden the location is a Lady Chapel where active worship regularly takes place throughout the week (and an area with  historic sensitivities, which are discussed at 6 below). This point has been entirely overlooked by the Bishop when reaching his decision.  

5.2. The Registrar, in his Preliminary Scrutiny Report states “It seems to me clear that the area is a chapel, as that term is commonly understood in the Church of England (in the sense of a chapel within a larger building). It might be that she could find no record of the chapel being formally dedicated/set aside as a particular chapel. At law this would not be needed to start referring to that part of the building as a chapel”. The Bishop is wholly wrong to discount this key issue (perhaps because the Registrar only goes on in his report to address it from the point of view of the Chancellor’s determination, which is not relevant to this complaint) because it is with regard to the unequivocal matter of the location being a chapel (as further evidenced elsewhere) that the Respondent undertook deliberate and calculated misrepresentation to the Chancellor, confirmed by the evidence to which I allude herewith. This is indisputably actionable misconduct under the Measure, not least because the deliberate misrepresentation was not made as part of some kind of informal, internal sign-off procedure but was submitted by the Respondent, an ordained clergy person, as signed, written evidence in a Court of Law. Accordingly, the Bishop is in the wrong to take no action with regard to this matter: to permit one of the clergy who is accountable to him to escape from actionable misconduct in this regard is manifestly an incorrect decision on his part. 

5.3. Contrary to that which I had endeavoured to deduce, the initial correspondence with the DAC on 18 July 2016 states that the area in question is a Lady Chapel. The Respondent was therefore at that time fully aware that the area in question was indeed a Lady Chapel. This is in total contradiction to the (mis)representation made by the Respondent to the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, as evidenced in the letter of 2 November 2016. In this letter, the Respondent states “I would like to make it clear that the area where we intend to place the table and four chairs is not strictly a Chapel”. The Respondent clearly knew well before this communication to the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, that the area in question was, in fact, a chapel. For an ordained member of the clergy to advise the Chancellor in Court proceedings that it is not a chapel is unquestionably a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation, actionable under the Measure and I repeat that the Bishop was wholly wrong to take no action over this. 

5.4. In her evidence to the Bishop, the Respondent writes “I wrote it is not ‘Strictly’ a Lady Chapel”. This is, in fact, not accurate - she wrote it “is not strictly a Chapel”, i.e. not any kind of chapel, Lady or otherwise. The Respondent seeks to rely on the use of her word “strictly” by saying to the Bishop “I meant that it was not a separate chapel with screens such as in my previous churches” but this is no defence whatsoever. The fact that the Lady Chapel at the church of St Mary the Virgin, Maulden was not of the same appearance as chapels in the Respondent’s previous churches does NOT make it “not strictly a chapel” - as confirmed by the Registrar in his Preliminary Scrutiny Report - and, I repeat, this statement is no defence whatsoever for the calculated and deliberate misrepresentation made. The Respondent has, as I alleged from the start, intentionally misinformed and misled the Chancellor and the Bishop should have been gravely concerned over this actionable misconduct, not least because of the seriousness of the situation in which the statement was made, i.e. in Faculty proceedings in the Consistory Court. 

5.5. Further evidence that the Respondent knew full well that the area is a chapel is given where the Respondent states “As a project to mark Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee it was decided to refurbish the Chapel. It was noted in the log book in 2003”. This is born out in the statement by MH “The first time it was referred to as the Lady Chapel in the Log Book was in 2003”, although according to the evidence of the PCC Minutes of February, March and October 2002 and January and February 2003 the area was clearly already being referred to as “the Lady Chapel” prior to the refurbishment works. Even though a Faculty could not in recent months be found for the refurbishment works and a Confirmatory (retrospective) Faculty was applied for and has now been granted for these works, according to the evidence submitted to the Bishop the church’s official log book has recorded the area as a “Lady Chapel” since at least 2003 yet the Chancellor was told it was not a chapel; a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation. Again, for the Bishop to take no action over this is wholly wrong, particularly given that the submission of this written statement was evidence given to a Judge in a Court of Law. 

5.6 Thus it is absolutely clear from the evidence submitted to the Bishop that the Respondent knew that the area in question was a chapel as early as 18 July 2016 (and undoubtedly much earlier) when she wrote to the DAC on that date saying “The PCC would like to buy a blue plastic table and 4 blue chairs to put in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday morning”. Yet later, in her letter of 2 November 2016, she told the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, that it is not a chapel, a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation of the facts, actionable as misconduct under the Measure. Effectively, as this statement is Court evidence, the Respondent has committed perjury and has treated the Consistory Court with contempt. The Consistory Court is one of the oldest Courts in England and an example of how serious Consistory Court procedure is considered is evidenced by the fact that contempt of the Consistory Court, certified as such by the Chancellor, is equivalent to contempt of the High Court itself. The Bishop was therefore completely in the wrong not to act on this most serious of points when reaching his decision. 

5.7. The Respondent even has the effrontery to state in her Form 2 “I replied to the Chancellor truthfully” yet the evidence submitted to the Bishop unequivocally shows this not to be the case, not only with regard to her deliberate misrepresentation of the status of the Lady Chapel but also, as admitted by the Respondent in counter evidence, to using correct nomenclature. She states “I should have referred to the north aisle rather than transept”. However, the Respondent also refers to a “South Transept”, which is a further misrepresentation since St Mary the Virgin, Maulden has no transept (as stated elsewhere). In addition, the Respondent states that the “Alban Chapel” (sic) is “also not a Chapel”. By the Registrar’s definition in his Preliminary Scrutiny Report this too is a deliberate misrepresentation, supported by the evidence which clearly refers to this side chapel as the “St Albans Chapel”. The Bishop, in his determination plays down the importance of what he calls “rather imprecise terms” but he is wrong to suggest that the incorrect terminology used - and the deliberate and calculated misrepresentation to the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, of the fact of the area not being a chapel, already known to be such by the Respondent - are mere side issues. He should have seen that the various statements do not in any way reconcile. These statements are key pieces of written evidence in a Court of Law, submitted to the Judge in that Court. Thus they take on a significance which the Bishop entirely fails to recognise. This is plainly wrong and if he had accorded due weight to the deliberate misrepresentation and the false attestation that the Respondent has “replied to the Chancellor truthfully”, he must see that these matters constitute actionable misconduct.    

5.8. There is another point about the Lady Chapel. I entirely accept, as attested in the evidence supplied to the Bishop, that the Lady Chapel is occasionally used for purposes other than for worship but, as stated elsewhere, the area is entered in the church Log Book not as a multi-purpose space but as a Lady Chapel. This is what its function first and foremost is: a sacred chapel within the church, dedicated to Our Lady (the dedication service from Easter 2003 has now been added retrospectively in the Register of Services). St Mary the Virgin is also the dedication of the church itself, so this Lady Chapel takes on an extra dimension in that it reinforces the importance of Our Lady for this particular church and for worship generally. This latter point alone has taken on an even greater import since the church has been open all day, every day, which it has for the past three years. Mrs M describes the Lady Chapel as a “friendly, intimate space” and many of those individuals visiting the church whilst it is open and those seeking to pray there would, before the permanent arrival of the Children’s Furniture, gravitate towards this smaller, sacred space with its historic surrounds rather than feel somewhat isolated in the centre of the main body of the church. The Respondent, a member of the clergy, has made no representations whatsoever in this regard but instead, as demonstrated above, has sought at all times deliberately to misrepresent the true nature of this special area within the consecrated building. When making his decision the Bishop has, surprisingly for a clergyman of his standing, taken no account whatsoever of these important spiritual factors and the Respondent’s deliberate attempts to misrepresent the importance of the Lady Chapel spiritually perforce make his decision to take no action plainly wrong.   

5.9 In summary, had the children’s furniture been placed almost anywhere else in the church (either on a temporary or permanent basis) or placed in the Lady Chapel only when needed, there would have been little, if any, rumpus about such a matter. It is the fact of the location being in the Lady Chapel, denied by the Respondent in legal proceedings as being a chapel at all, with its historic and spiritual associations - and on a permanent basis - which is at the heart of this matter. Because the Registrar sought not to grasp this fundamental point and the Bishop had seen evidence (to which I had not been party) that the initial approach to the DAC “made it clear that the proposals related to the Lady Chapel”, the Bishop has not pursued this fundamental issue leading to the manifestly incorrect decision to take no action. 

6. Historic sensitivities 

6.1. The Lady Chapel takes on yet further added importance because of its particular historic sensitivities and the Bishop is wrong not to take this point into account when gauging the seriousness of the alleged actionable misconduct.  

6.2. Although, contrary to what I originally thought, the Respondent did state to the DAC that the proposed location for the furniture was to be the Lady Chapel, she makes no attempt whatsoever to advise the DAC of the historic surrounds and artefacts in this area, as set out elsewhere. These include, as stated in the evidence, the fact that the area in question, one of the oldest parts of the parish church, is bounded by a Victorian sandstone and brick wall and an 1859 window with bath surround, a high oak 1905 organ loft and 1912 choir vestry surround (which may have been constructed from an older rood screen) and it includes, inter alia, Victorian altar rails and a fully working “Tavern clock” dating from at least 1782. The DAC could not reasonably be expected to know these important details, especially - as evidenced elsewhere - because no Faculty appears to have been applied for at the time of the refurbishment works completed in 2003 and there have been no further Faculties related to that area in the intervening decade and a half.  

6.3. The Respondent did not supply the DAC with, as might be expected, a photograph of the Lady Chapel at Maulden and she did not enumerate the historic features immediately within and around that particular area. These serious historic considerations should have been communicated to the DAC to be taken into account by the Committee, in the first instance, when formulating its views. The Registrar completely fails to address this point in his Preliminary Scrutiny Report even though it is clearly part of my allegation. The Bishop is wrong to overlook this withholding of important information which could - and should - have greatly assisted the DAC’s deliberations and properly informed the Chancellor (by virtue of additional comments on the DAC Notification of Advice and possibly even an “Object” decision). 

6.4. This deliberate withholding of important historical information is perpetuated by the respondent when communicating with the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, in response to the objections raised by me as the Faculty objector. The Respondent makes no attempt to confirm or deny the assertions made regarding the historic sensitivities. The Respondent’s only comment in her reply to the specific points regarding the historic surrounds to and artefacts within the Lady Chapel is to say “At the west end there is a screen which was erected during the 1970s [although, I believe this was actually in the 1950s] to make a choir vestry”. This implies the screen was built in the 1970s: the Respondent does not go on to make the point that this screen, designed by W.D. Caroe, is actually Victorian, dating from 1912 as stated and as evidenced elsewhere. 

6.5. I accept that these are matters which may be seen as ones primarily for consideration by the Chancellor but it is clear that the Respondent has deliberately misrepresented to him - I say again, a Judge in a Court of Law - the true historic nature of the Lady Chapel into which the completely incongruous, coloured, plastic children’s furniture was to be (and now has been) placed. The Bishop, when reaching his decision, is wrong not to have taken into account this cavalier attitude to the historic sensitivities of the building for which the Respondent has responsibility and her serious misrepresentation of the true position, constituting actionable misconduct.  

7. The position at Flitwick and the colour mismatch 

7.1. The Registrar states that he would not expect a neighbouring Incumbent to know precisely what authorisation process another parish had gone through to seek permission for the introduction of furniture. However, in stating this he has completely ignored the fact that the Respondent is also a Rural Dean and, in this role, liaises very closely with neighbouring parishes and clergy. Further, the Respondent, as Rural Dean, is regularly called upon to carry out Inspections on behalf of the Archdeacon (who has been long-term indisposed). This is born out by the evidence where the Respondent says, in her letter to the Registrar on behalf of the Chancellor “As Rural Dean I have inspected most of the churches in my Deanery”. Accordingly, contrary to the Registrar’s assertion, the Respondent did and does have a good working knowledge of the situation at Flitwick and other local churches, as clearly evidenced.  

7.2. The Bishop is wrong to ignore this point when reaching his decision. It is an important point because, as evidenced, the Respondent is deliberately misrepresenting the position at Maulden to the DAC and to the Chancellor respectively. Making the statements “If the DAC gave permission to Flitwick surely we can have the same” and “As they [Flitwick] have been granted permission [we] could see no reason why it would not meet with the approval of the Diocese as a precedent has already been set” is deliberately misrepresentative - because, as I have alleged from the start, as the Respondent fully knew, the position at Flitwick is not directly comparable to that at Maulden. These statements were clearly made to try and bring pressure to bear on the DAC and the Chancellor by suggesting a precedent which does not exist.  

7.3. That the position at Flitwick is not directly comparable is immediately evident from the photograph sent by the Respondent to the DAC in the original application. It is apparent from this that the walls at Flitwick are plain and whitewashed, that the floor is bare, that there are no immediately adjacent historic artefacts and that the area is towards the rear of the main body of the church. This is completely different to the situation at Maulden, as evidenced. Contrary to what the Registrar states, the Respondent in her capacity as Rural Dean would indeed have been very aware that the situation at Flitwick is entirely different to that at Maulden, where the plan was to place the furniture on a permanent basis in an historically sensitive Lady Chapel used daily for worship and prayer and the Bishop should have taken account of this when reaching his decision. Further, as confirmed by the evidence, the Respondent knew (because this e-mail was copied to her when sent on 3 August) that the Faculty at Flitwick was to make permanent the introduction of furniture already in place, which had been authorised by an Archdeacon’s Temporary Re-ordering Licence, not a Faculty to introduce the furniture into the church in the first instance as at Maulden. 

7.4. The Respondent fails to disclose to anybody at any time that, as evidenced in the DAC’s e-mail to the Revd LD at Flitwick dated 3 August 2016, which was copied to the Respondent, the DAC was endeavouring the encourage the Incumbent there “to replace the children’s furniture when possible in wood that would be more in keeping with the character of the grade I listed church”. This e-mail states “I am copying this to Lynda because I know she’s thinking of something similar in Maulden church. We may have to proceed on the same basis there”. Instead, the Respondent continues to pursue her own agenda by stating “We really want the bright furniture as it is blue and will match our church”. The only items which are blue in the church at Maulden are the carpet and the chairs in the Lady Chapel and the respondent tells the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, “We have chosen blue which will match the carpet and the existing upholstered chairs”. As evidenced the children’s furniture does NOT match the carpet and chairs. The Registrar, in his Preliminary Scrutiny Report endeavours to play down the importance of this but I believe the Bishop is wrong to dismiss this aspect, when reaching his decision, given the sensitivities which the evidence confirms the Respondent was clearly already aware of regarding the DAC’s preferred choice of wood as being more in character with a listed church. “Match” means “match” and the Chancellor, from what he was told, might reasonably have expected the colour of the children’s furniture to be as close as possible to that of the carpet and other chairs. The evidence is that the Respondent deliberately misrepresented the true colour of the chairs, which are actually attested to in Mrs M’s Witness Statement as being “light grey”.  

7.5. To summarise, to suggest to the Chancellor that a precedent existed regarding the children’s furniture and to inform him that the furniture at Maulden will “match” is deliberately to misrepresent the position. The Bishop should have taken this into account when reaching his decision not to take any action because this calculated misrepresentation, despite the Registrar’s incorrect (regarding the Respondent’s knowledge of Flitwick) and special (regarding the meaning of “match”) pleading accrues with all the other statements of misrepresentation to present a clear picture of actionable misconduct. 

8. The position re Mrs S

8.1. I believe the Bishop is wrong to reject the evidence regarding what Mrs S2 understood was said at the meeting with the Respondent on 5 September. I accept that the Respondent and Mrs S have attested different points of view to that of Mrs S2 and that the Bishop has to make a reasonable judgement. However, it is clear from the evidence that both Mrs S2 and Mr G, rightly or wrongly, understood that the furniture was to be placed in the Lady Chapel on Sundays and at all other times stored elsewhere. This understanding did not originate from nowhere. As stated at 3.1 above, in the case of Mr G this understanding induced him to become a Faculty co-petitioner. In the case of Mrs S2 it induced her not to object to the Faculty proposals and to advise Mrs D, Mrs S3 and Mr R - who, with Mrs S2, had planned to lodge objections to the proposals - that they also did not need to object because the Lady Chapel was NOT to be the permanent repository for the children’s furniture.  

8.2. The important point here is that, if Mrs S2 was mistaken - as the Bishop evidently infers - and thus the furniture was NOT going to be put out in the Lady Chapel only as and when needed, then this reinforces the deliberate misrepresentation made by the Respondent in the key documents forming the application to the DAC (which subsequently became the basis of the Faculty petition) and the other misrepresentation, all discussed at 2 above. In other words, if the Bishop - as he seems to have done - accepts what the Respondent claims to have said at the meeting on 5 September then he must, by the same token, acknowledge the deliberate misrepresentation discussed at 2 above, recognise this for what it is - actionable misconduct - and appreciate that, in deciding to take no action, he has plainly made the wrong decision. The Bishop cannot have it both ways. 

8.3. The Bishop recognises that the nub of my grievance is that the undertaking to remove the furniture only on a Wednesday is at variance with assurances that the furniture would be stored away when not in use and he says “This allegation is heavily dependent on a meeting where two of the three individuals who were present have submitted closely similar testimony which contradicts the complainant’s version”. However, it is not “heavily dependent”; it is only in part dependent on this meeting. The Bishop has entirely ignored all the other evidence, unconnected with this meeting, to which I have drawn attention in this document which demonstrates the deliberate misrepresentations being made by the Respondent to various parties. Ignoring this important evidence has been a major contributory factor in the Bishop’s decision to take no action, which - given the evidence - is plainly wrong. 

9. The end result 

9.1 The Bishop at no time has appeared to have “stepped back” to consider what the end result is of the various papers and arguments laid before him. If he had done so his decision must have been other than to take no action, for the following reasons. 

9.2. I do not gainsay the fact, as attested in the evidence submitted to the Bishop, that the Lady Chapel is used occasionally for other purposes but it is primarily a Lady Chapel, recorded as such - as attested - in the church log book. What was once a well loved and special chapel in the church - a “friendly, intimate space”, as attested to by Mrs M, dedicated to Our Lady and used daily for worship and prayer - has become instead the very “children’s corner” which the Respondent was determined to have - but now on a permanent basis. JS, in her Witness Statement states “The area must continue to be used by all sections of society in the widest sense” and RC says “The church needs to be inclusive” but it is obvious that this wider use and inclusivity does not now, at Maulden, extend to those who wish to use the Lady Chapel for its primary purpose and to come close to God there in worship and prayer in an uncluttered area surrounded by rich history. This is what the Respondent’s actionable deliberate shenanegins have resulted in. 

9.3. The Respondent attests, regarding the meeting with Mrs S2 and Mrs S on 5 September, that “I informed her (sic) of the PCC’s decision which was not to change anything. Yet everything has changed, as is immediately apparent by comparing the photographs "before the arrival of the furniture" and "after the furniture’s arrival". Assuring Mrs S2 that nothing would change is a blatant and deliberate misrepresentation and the Bishop should have taken this into account when reaching his decision.  

9.4. The Respondent told the DAC “on Sundays books and toys are put there” (i.e. in the Lady Chapel) but the position now is that the books and toys remain there all the time. This is a change. Mrs M confirms that “no changes were made” until the furniture was installed. She goes on to state that “the baskets of baby toys and children’s books were kept here” but she fails to disclose that these baskets were carefully stowed out of sight under the chairs (and often they were stowed out of sight under the nearby pews to the north of the nave). The photographs evidence that the baskets for the toys and games are now permanently on display and that some of contents are always, now, left on the table, as further evidenced in the photographs, which were NOT taken on a Sunday. Thus the Lady Chapel has now taken on an entirely different appearance: it is, as I say, no longer primarily a chapel - as recorded in the log book - but is, primarily, a children’s play area available every day of the week. 

9.5. This children’s play area has been obtained by stealth and misrepresentation. It has not been, as at Flitwick, the result of experimental permission by means of an Archdeacon’s Temporary Re-ordering Licence, the Licence having subsequently been made good by a Faculty. It has not even been obtained by a Faculty to create a designated children’s area. It has, instead, come about through the deliberate misrepresentations made by the Respondent to the DAC, to the Chancellor and to others, as set out in this document. In fact, strictly speaking, it could be argued that the granted Faculty, as worded, actually does NOT permit the furniture to remain in the Lady Chapel each day because the Faculty authorises the proposals “described in the Schedule in accordance with the designs, plans or other documents accompanying the petition” and the Schedule states “As described in a letter from Revd (sic) Canon Lynda Klimas with PCC minute dated 29 June 2016 and a photograph”. As explained in detail at 2 above, the letter and the PCC Minute refer to placing the furniture “on a Sunday morning”, “on a Sunday” and “during services”. 

9.6. Mrs M says “Although they [the table and chairs] are usually in the Lady Chapel with Bible stories and colouring pictures, they do not prevent other uses”. I acknowledged this but pointed out that the “atmosphere” of the Lady Chapel for devotions would be (and, as has been proven, is) altered detrimentally and considerably by the presence of coloured, plastic furniture. The Respondent attests that “It [the children’s furniture] would not be in the way for Morning Prayer as there are at most three or four of us seated in a semicircle in front of the altar”. This is a further misrepresentation because, as the hotographs show, it is no longer possible to position the chairs for Morning Prayer in this prayerful arrangement; they instead have to be placed almost in a straight line immediately abutting the altar rail. All these things are permanent changes, none of which was represented or explained in the original application and none of which adhere to the (mis)representation given by the Respondent to Mrs S2 “not to change anything”. 

9.7. Contrary to the evidence supplied by Mrs S I at no time told Mrs S2 that the Respondent “was going to get rid of the Lady Chapel”. I went to see Mrs S2 to enquire whether she was (a) aware of the proposal to introduce children’s plastic furniture into the church and (b) if so, whether she was aware that the proposed location for this was the Lady Chapel. Mrs S2 told me she was aware of neither, even though she had seen the dubiously worded Public Notice (referring to a “children’s area”). I certainly expressed my fear, in my discussion with Mrs S2, that if the Faculty were successful this might result in the “downgrading” of the Lady Chapel by it becoming a permanent children’s area and this fear has been fully realised as the table, chairs, toys and games are now left in the Lady Chapel permanently (save for their temporary removal on Wednesday mornings).  

9.8. If the Bishop had examined the evidence and considered what actually, in practical terms, was the end result of the process, as described above, he would have realised that the Respondent sought all along the effective ruin of the Lady Chapel by turning it into a permanent children’s play area and, in order to achieve this ultimate goal, used lies, deceit, deviousness, misinformation and manipulation as I originally alleged. I aver that this level of actual intent and calculation IS proven in the evidence submitted, hence my statement that the Bishop’s decision to take no action is plainly wrong. 

10. The wider church and community 

10.1. I also maintain that the Bishop is wrong in his overall decision to take no further action in this matter for a very important additional reason, as follows.  

10.2. Paragraph 96 of the Clergy Discipline Measure Code of Practice states that “The Bishop, when administering discipline, should have regard to the separate interests of the complainant, the respondent, the respondent’s family, the local church and community and the wider church and community”. In deciding not to take any further action in this matter, the Bishop has not had regard to the implications that his decision will have on the wider church. This is wrong.  

10.3. By deciding to take no action, the Bishop has effectively endorsed a charter for: 

(i) Clergy across the wider church to seek to obtain Faculties under false pretences - i.e. by making deliberate, calculated, misrepresentations of proposals to the DAC, to the Chancellor and to others - without facing any consequences whatsoever; 

(ii) Clergy across the wider church to seek to make untruthful written statements to Diocesan Chancellors in Ecclesiastical Courts of Law - without facing any consequences whatsoever; 

(iii) Clergy across the wider church to seek to withhold and/or obfuscate and/or misrepresent the historic sensitivities of the buildings, or part thereof, which need to be taken into account when applying for Faculties - without facing any consequences whatsoever; 

(iv) Clergy across the wider church to seek to treat chapels in their own churches with the level of disdain accorded by the Respondent to the Lady Chapel at Maulden - without facing any consequences whatsoever. 

10.4. These are very serious issues of vital importance for the wider church (and the Faculty Jurisdiction). Without disciplining the Respondent for the misconduct which is clearly attested to in the evidence which has been placed before the Bishop, not only are the Respondent’s misconduct, actions and false statements effectively condoned by the Bishop but it leaves her free to repeat the process for future Faculties and, of paramount importance, it sets no precedent whatsoever for similar actions of evident misconduct which may be attempted elsewhere across the whole Church of England. Indeed, I would even assert that by deciding to take no further action in this matter, this decision actually encourages such misconduct in the future. The decision by the Bishop is, accordingly, plainly wrong. 

10.5. Paragraph 96 also refers to the wider community. For good or ill, there has been much interest and publicity in the media about this particular case. The Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy state “The reputation of the Church in the community depends to a great extent on the integrity and example of its clergy”. The Bishop appears to have taken no account of how his decision will be received in the “wider community”. Deciding to take no action, in the face of clearly actionable misconduct, sends out a very clear message to the wider community that clergy are not held accountable and go unpunished for their deliberate actions and misrepresentations. Such a decision is plainly wrong. 

11. Conclusion 

11.1 The Code of Practice to the Clergy Discipline Measure states (paragraphs 77 and 84) that it is not the function of the Registrar to carry out a detailed investigation into the complaint but merely to advise the Bishop; it is the Bishop who makes the decision about these matters. Para 105 of the Code of Practice reinforces that the Bishop should have regard to the contents of the Registrar’s report but must exercise his own judgement in deciding on the appropriate course of action. 

11.2. As evidenced in this document, I do not believe the Bishop has made a sufficiently detailed investigation into all the specific matters but has merely summarily dismissed almost all of them as being of no importance when they clearly are of the greatest importance, for the reasons I give in this document and which are entirely based on the evidence submitted. Accordingly, I reassert that I believe the Bishop was wrong in limiting the scope of his considerations, leading him to a decision to take no action. 

11.3. The evidence supplied supports many of my allegations. It reveals actual intent and calculated misrepresentation, the motivation for this, deliberate withholding of information and obfuscation, a cavalier attitude to historical information and to actual facts and, in short, many examples of actionable misconduct on the part of the Respondent, especially the submission of deliberately false statements by the Respondent, a member of the clergy, to a Judge in a Court of Law, all resulting in arguably ultra vires changes within a Grade II* listed church.  

11.4 For all the reasons stated in this document I re-assert that the Bishop’s decision to dismiss those allegations where unequivocal evidence submitted to him clearly attests to deliberate misconduct having been committed are not within the range of reasonable decisions and that this judgement, leading the Bishop to decide to take no further action in this matter, is plainly wrong. In making this decision, the Bishop is effectively being complicit in the misrepresentations. 

11.5. Accordingly, I trust the Tribunal will forthwith remit this matter back to the Bishop and direct him to pursue such of the courses specified in section 12(1)(b) to (e) of the Measure as he considers appropriate.