R v Archbishop of Canterbury and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE SEDLEY |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 1996 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1996] EWHC J0315-2 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO-2149-95 |
| Date | 15 March 1996 |
[1996] EWHC J0315-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before: Mr. Justice Sedley
CO-2149-95
MR. WILLIAMSON appeared in person with Mackenzie Friend
MR. T BRIDEN appeared for the Respondent.
Friday 15 March 1996
MR. JUSTICE SEDLEYThere cannot be many countries in the world where the ordinary courts can be called upon to entertain as issues of law the kind of theological debate which, with his customary charm and skill, Mr. Williamson brings before the Court today on this, by my reckoning his eighth application for judicial review. Today the application concerns the Porvoo Declaration. Its genesis and adoption are described by Mr. Hanson, who has deposed on behalf of the intended respondent, in this way:
"2. In July 1994 the General Synod considered and gave provisional approval to the Porvoo Declaration, a document formulated in the course of discussions involving representatives of the British and Irish Anglican Churches and the episcopal reformed Churches of the Nordic and Baltic regions. Under Article 8 of the Constitution of the General Synod (set out in Schedule 2 of the Synodical Government Measure 1969) the Declaration was referred to each Diocesan Synod within the Church of England. For the purpose of the reference to the Diocesan Synods there was prepared a booklet (a copy of which is now produced and shown to me marked 'BJTH1') setting out the terms of the Declaration and containing explanatory material.
3. The Declaration was approved by every diocesan synod, and the provision in Article 8 of the Constitution of General Synod requiring it to be approved by a majority of the diocesan synods was therefore satisfied.The Declaration was again debated by the General Synod in July 1995 and final approval was given to its terms.
4. Legislation to give effect to the Declaration was considered to be unnecessary. The Declaration (set out at pages 4 and 5 of 'BJTH1') concerns common beliefs and commitments. Insofar as episcopally ordained ministers from participating Churches were to be welcomed to serve within the Church of England, this by paragraph b(v) was subject to regulations which might from time to time be enforced."
The provision there referred to and which is the focus of Mr. Williamson's challenge, provision b(v), reads:
"We commit ourselves:
…..
(v) to welcome persons episcopally ordained in any of our churches to the office of bishop, priest or deacon to serve, by invitation and in accordance with any regulations which may from time to time be in force, in that ministry in the receiving church without re-ordination."
It will be observed that what is proposed and has been adopted is a policy which goes further than the occasional invitation to a visiting minister to, say, preach at a service, but does not go so far as deeming ministers of foreign churches to have been ordained in the Church of England. It nevertheless goes far enough, in Mr. Williamson's submission, to offend against the law because it envisages persons who have not been ordained in the Church of England conducting services and officiating as if they were ministers of the church of England.
I do not think that anything, in terms of the answer to this claim, can hang upon Article 8 of the Constitution of the General Synod. This declaration ranked as a scheme within Article 8 which Mr. Briden, who has appeared on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to whom I am extremely grateful, describes as the rough equivalent of a treaty. It is in the true sense a diplomatic arrangement between the Church of England and other churches.
What Mr. Williamson contends is that it is unlawful by canon law, of which this Court has cognisance, because it offends against section 10 of the Act of Uniformity 1662, as well as against further provisions of canon law to which I will come. It is section 10 of the Act of Uniformity, however, which seems to me to be the high point of Mr. Williamson's argument. In its present amended form —and it has been amended in modern times -it provides:
"And….. no person whatsoever shall thenceforth be capable to bee admitted to any parsonage vicarage benefice or other ecclesiastical promotion or dignity whatsoever…..before such time as he shall be ordained priest according to the forme and manner in and by the said booke [the Book of Common Prayer] prescribed unlesse he have formally beene made priest by episcopall ordination….."
The clergymen, and no doubt clergywomen, who are permitted by the Porvoo Declaration to officiate in services of the Church of England include those of a number of Baltic and Scandinavian churches, including Iceland, Denmark and Norway, which, it is Mr. Williamson's case, do not recognise because they have not practised historically the apostolic succession by the continuous laying on of hands. They therefore, he submits, cannot lawfully be recognised for the purpose of the reciprocal arrangements set out in the Porvoo Declaration.
In aid of this submission, Mr. Williamson draws attention to the preface to the Ordinal, which is captioned "The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons"...
To continue reading
Request your trial