Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27008/95

by Paul WILLIAMSON

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 17 May 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 2 June 1994 by

Paul WILLIAMSON against the United Kingdom and registered on

7 April 1995 under file No. 27008/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a priest in the Church of England. He was born

in 1948 and lives in Hanworth. The facts of the case, as submitted by

the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In 1993 two measures were enacted which would lead to the

ordination of women as priests, the Priests (Ordination of Women)

Measure 1993 and the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure

1993. The Measures were enacted pursuant to the Church of England

Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, which is an Act of Parliament. The

Financial Provisions measure provided for the payments to priests and

certain others who resigned from ecclesiastical service by reason of

opposition to the ordination of women as priests.

Canon C 4B (Of Women Priests) was made under the Ordination of

Women Measure. It provided, in part, as follows:

"1. A woman may be ordained to the office of priest if she

otherwise satisfies the requirements of Canon C4 as to the

persons who may be ordained as priests."

The applicant considers that it is heresy for the Church of

England to allow the ordination of women to the priesthood, that it is

productive of schism and unlawful. He made a series of challenges to

the Measures.

On 1 March 1994 the Court of Appeal refused, on a renewed

application, an application by the applicant for leave for judicial

review by way of declaratory relief that the Synod of the Church of

England acted unlawfully in promulgating Canon C 4B (The Times,

9 March 1994). The Master of the Rolls found that there was no

restriction on the scope of matters relating to the Church of England

which could form the subject of a measure, and that once a measure had

been duly enacted it had the same invulnerability as an Act of

Parliament and its validity could not be challenged in the courts. The

other members of the Court of Appeal agreed.

On 11 November 1994 Mr. Justice Lightman, in the Chancery

Division of the High Court, gave judgment on a summons by the

Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Church Commissioners to

strike out the applicant's originating summons of 4 February 1994.

Granting the summons to strike out the originating summons as

"vexatious and an abuse of process" the judge recalled that there had

been for centuries a custom which was part of ecclesistical law, and

thereby of the general law of England, that only men could be ordained

to the priesthood. The first women priests had been ordinated on

12 March 1994. He found that the issues the applicant was trying to

raise were public law issues which should not be dealt with in the

Chancery Division, and that the public law issues had already been

litigated in the judicial review proceedings. It did not matter that

there was no full hearing of those proceedings because leave for

judicial review had been refused. Even if he could consider the same

matters as those which had been put to the Queen's Bench Division, the

judge was bound by precedent. In connection with the Financial

Measure, the judge found the legal basis for the payments of

compensation to priests and others who resigned was clear from the

measure, as was the basis for payment of women priests. He considered

that the applicant's contentions were based on his theological views,

and were plainly wrong in law.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 9 of the Convention.

He considers that the Ordination of Women Measure is in breach of

domestic constitutional law in several respects, and adds that:

- he is required to accept women priests in the church which is

against his conscience and belief;

- he is forced to raise money to pay compensation for those who

leave the church;

- he is now in a church which has had its identity changed without

his being consulted, or having consented;

- he is bound by the oath he gave on ordination, but the meaning

of that oath has been varied and he is compromised;

- he is faced with constructive dismissal for not agreeing with the

measure; and

- the parochial rights of all parishioners are violated because

individuals have to accept the ministrations of a priest, female

or male, and cannot in law refuse, despite their conscience being

contrary to women priests.

THE LAW

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 9 (Art. 9) of the

Convention. This Article provides as follows:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience

and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion

or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others

and in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief,

in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be

subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are

necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public

safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or

for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

The Commission first notes that the applicant remains in his

parish and, although he refers to the possibility of "constructive

dismissal" in his application, has made no submissions whatever which

indicate that he is under a real or immediate threat of dismissal. The

Commission also notes that the changes which have been brought about

in the Church of England affect the structure of that Church rather

than the beliefs of the applicant.

The Commission recalls that it has previously held that, where

the requirements of a church are in conflict with a clergyman's

beliefs, his freedom of thought, conscience and religion is maintained

whilst he can leave his office (Karlsson v. Sweden, No. 12356/86, Dec.

8.9.88, D.R. 57 p. 172). Whilst it is true that the ordination of

women has only become possible since the applicant took his initial

oaths in the Church of England, the Commission notes that the domestic

courts which have considered the case have had no doubts as to the

lawfulness of the changes in domestic law. Furthermore, the Commission

notes that changes in the nature of one's employment, even in the

Church of England, can never be completely excluded.

Finally, the Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention prohibits discrimination in connection with Convention

rights, and one of the aims of the Church of England in permitting the

ordination of women was undoubtedly to achieve greater equality between

men and women in that Church's hierarchy.

Even assuming that there has been an interference with the

applicant's freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the Commission

finds that that interference was "prescribed by law". The Commission

also finds that the Synod's concern to abide by its view of scripture

can be regarded as coming within the meaning of "protection of ...

morals", and the Synod's wish to treat women equally can be regarded

as necessary for the "the protection of the rights and freedoms of

others".

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within

the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

Menu

WILLIAMSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

WILLIAMSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI