IN THE ARCHES COURT AT CANTERBURY Case No:ARC/1234/2020
B E T W E E N:
THE REVEREND ANDREW PARKES Appellant
-and-
THE VENERABLE COLIN SUMTON Respondent
_________________________________________________________
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
________________________________
Introduction
1. This is an appeal brought by the Appellant against a decision of the Bishop’s
Disciplinary Tribunal constituted at Southtown (“the Tribunal”) .
2. The Appellant submits that the Tribunal was incorrect in its decision because (1) the
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the Appellant, and (2) the penalty imposed by the
Tribunal was disproportionate in the circumstances.
3. The Appellant respectfully submits the decision be overturned on the grounds set out
below.
Ground One
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the Appellant, since he was no longer under the
Authority of the Church of England; further or in the alternative, because of the operation of
res judicata
4. The steps taken by the Appellant were sufficient to remove himself from the
jurisdictional authority of the Church of England pursuant with the Clerical
Disabilities Act 1870 (‘CDA’)
4.1 The Appellant does not contend that the conduct that led to the disciplinary charges
being brought took place, but that he had already relinquished his office of minister in
the Church of England re The Reverend Dr Andrew Hawthorne (2014).
4.2 The Appellant effectively complied with the relevant procedure provided by the CDA
section 3 to relinquish his office of minister in the Church of England.
4.3 The CDA section 4 provides that six months following the delivery of the inrolment of
a deed of relinquishment, the individual executing the deed would be relinquished of
their rights and duties as minister in the Church of England.
4.4 Further, the proceedings against the Appellant were brought outside the scope of the
‘aforesaid period of sixth months,’ as set out in CDA section 5.
5. The principle of res judicata is still applicable as the Roman Catholic Canon law has
standing.
5.1 Although it is not contended that the Roman Catholic Canon law is not strictly
speaking an English Court System, it was acknowledged by the House of Lords that
canon law forms ‘the basis’ of ecclesiastical law in R. v Millis (1844) 8 E.R. 844 [680-
2] .
5.2 In order for the principle to be applicable the matter must have been adjudicated by a
competent court. The Catholic Church is recognised by Public International law as an
autonomous political society, the Church of England, by contract is merely the
ecclesiastical branch of the state. Therefore, Roman Catholic law should, be compared,
prima facie, with English law as a whole as a competent.
I Ali AlShaffi appear on behalf of THE REVEREND ANDREW PARKES the
appellant in this appeal before the arches court at Canterbury before the
respected Judge Hanson J.
