On 20 August 2025, the Church in Wales published the judgment of the Disciplinary Tribunal In the Matter of a Complaint against the Reverend Ryan Forey on referral from the Bishop of Llandaff, The Right Reverend Mary Stallard. The judgment includes the Charge, (Annex B), and full details of the penalty imposed, (Annex A).

Background

The Church in Wales has produced Guidance on the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Church in Wales, (1 April 2024), and Disciplinary Policy and Procedure of The Clergy, with a Note from the Legal Department of the Representative Body, (February 2024), although this does not form part of the Policy.

The Charge

“[2]. The Charge (17 April 2025), alleges that at the relevant time the Respondent was guilty of conduct giving just cause for scandal or offence, and of wilful disobedience to or breach of the provisions of the Constitution or of the statement of Terms of Service published pursuant to the Clergy Terms of Service Canon 2010, contrary to chapter IX paragraph 9(c) and 9(d) of the Constitution of the Church in Wales (“The Constitution”) during the period 2020- 2024.

[3]. The Respondent faces three distinct allegations. The Charge as prepared by the Proctor is attached in full to this judgment at Annex B, but the three elements can be summarised as follows:

a) Between October 2020 and February 2024, whilst chair of charitable trustees of the Parochial Church Council of Saint Teilo’s Church Cardiff (Citizen Church) he did authorise, instruct or make payments to himself and his wife, namely (a) payments of £300 per month in lieu of fees for parochial fees for occasional office services which were not conducted and (b) £500 per month “clergy spouse” payments – from PCC funds and thereby he obtained benefit(s) that were not reimbursement for legitimate expenses and were made otherwise than in accordance with the governing documents of the said charity.

b) Between February 2023 and March 2023, the respondent whilst the vicar of Citizen Church did allow to be used the Citizen App (a mobile electronic application) which did display the names of children attending the church to other users of the App contrary to Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation SI 2016/679 and safeguarding best practice, knowing that the names were so displayed to users.

c) The Respondent whilst the vicar of Citizen Church did establish a church outside the Church in Wales known as Be Church, Cardiff, and held or accepted the position of pastor without the consent of his Bishop.

[…]

[5]. The original referral to the Tribunal included other matters of concern to the Bishop. The Preliminary Stage of the Tribunal found no case to answer in relation to some of these matters, and the Proctor declined to file charges in relation to some others, following his assessment that there was no realistic possibility of him securing an adverse disciplinary finding on those matters. We do not detail these matters; for the avoidance of doubt no disciplinary finding is made against the Respondent other than in relation to the matters specifically set out in the Charge.

[6]. The Respondent … admitted all of the allegations set out in the Charge”.

Directions Hearing

A Directions Hearing was held on 26 June 2025, [7], and a draft penalty sent to the Parties on the 24 July. This was accompanied by the statement: “This draft sentence is confidential until publication of the full Judgment and reasons. It shall be distributed to the Proctor, Respondent and the referring Bishop. Further distribution prior to publication of the full judgment requires the permission of the Tribunal.” The Registrar approved the Respondent’s requested permission, via his solicitor, to disclose the penalty “to some Church of England bishops as soon as possible so he can discuss the ability to move on”, [8].

However, the Respondent sent at least one email to a church leader (not a Bishop) containing details of the penalty prior to the finalized judgment, [10]; the email contained a number of inaccurate assertions about the process and procedure adopted, including a suggestion that the Bishop of Llandaff had interfered in the process late in the day, leading to a more severe penalty being imposed than had (the Respondent asserts) previously been agreed, [12]. The Tribunal noted:

“[13]. …in the Disciplinary system of the Church in Wales, the Proctor does not act on the instructions of the referring Bishop and exercises his or her professional judgment and discretion in making submissions. The only body competent to agree and impose a penalty is this Tribunal, which did not meet to consider the evidence and submissions until the 22 July. The Registrar … made enquiries of the Proctor, who … confirmed that he at no stage had agreed with the Respondent’s solicitor or counsel a joint submission on appropriate penalty. In short, there was no agreed penalty”.

There were other assertions in the email which the Panel considered to be inaccurate and misleading, [14]. These were considered when “a majority of the Panel (ref 1) reconvened on 14 August 2025, and “after considerable reflection”, the Tribunal … decided not to reconvene a hearing, nor to advise the Bishop to make a fresh referral to the Tribunal, [15].

The Tribunal observed that it was clear that Mr Forey sought to continue his ordained ministry in the Church of England, and noted that such a breach of an order of a Clergy Discipline Tribunal in the Church of England would likely be considered a contempt of court, which could be referred to the High Court of England & Wales for enforcement, [16]. However, the disestablished nature of the Church in Wales and its Courts & Tribunals precludes such a step being taken here.

Nevertheless, it amended paragraph 6 of the Penalty to require that any Bishop seeking a reference or Clergy Current Status Letter for the Respondent be provided with a full copy of this judgment, to ensure that they are fully appraised of the admitted misconduct, the penalty, and the concerns raised by the Tribunal over the Respondent’s conduct in the days running up to the handing down of this judgment, [16].

The Tribunal then considered:

• the Background to the Hearing, [17] to [20];
• the Charges, [21] to [27]; and
• the Legal Principles, [28], [29].

The standard of proof that applied to proceedings in this Tribunal was the civil standard, the balance of probability. In this case the charges are admitted, [28]. The Tribunal followed the guidance of the Provincial Court of the Church in Wales in the matter of the Reverend Clifford Smith Williams (1 November 1997) in relation to what constitutes conduct giving just cause for scandal and offence. It accepted that the test is in part theological and in part a matter of fact.

For such conduct to be found, there must be a course of conduct knowingly entered upon by the Respondent; the course of conduct must, in the eyes of the Church, be judged to be inherently wrong and the course of conduct must bring such discredit upon the Respondent and the Church that, in the eyes of a person of reasonably robust persuasion, such a person would describe it as scandalous or offensive. The Tribunal reminded itself that the Respondent has been represented by lawyers well-versed in ecclesiastical law and that, when he admitted the Charges, he would have been aware of the tests that we apply, [29].

Tribunal Findings

The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent had taken responsibilities in Citizen Church for which he had not been adequately prepared and during which his support, supervision and guidance were significantly absent. It did, however, “detect in the initial responses … an element of arrogance and a readiness to minimise his own failings. In particular, he seemed so focused on driving the development of the Citizen Church that he ignored the reservations of those around him about the app (i.e. the Citizen App, supra) and the safeguarding issues that arose from it. He felt that he could deal with the financial arrangements in breach of the requirements of Charity Law and have seen evidence he was prepared to side-line the PCC to pursue what he thought was right”.

It found that “he was prepared to seek to set up an alternative Church and the evidence persuades us that he was at least party to attempts to persuade members of the Citizen congregation to leave the Church in Wales and join the Church he was setting up. He went behind the back of the Church in Wales hierarchy and did not seek to discuss his concerns about the direction of his ministry with persons within the Church in Wales who would have explored his concerns.

The fact that the Church may not have provided him with appropriate mentoring and supervision does not mean that there was no one in place whom he could have consulted or asked for advice which, if followed, could have spared him from appearance before this Tribunal”, [30].

Notwithstanding its findings, the Tribunal accepted that once properly guided and supervised, as he would have been if he had experienced a traditional curacy, there is no reason for him not to develop his ministry and be a considerable asset to the Church in Wales or another church within the Anglican Communion. Before this can happen, however, it regarded it as essential that he is able to demonstrate that he can show an understanding and commitment to the requirements of ordained Anglican ministry and to the role of a charitable trustee which necessarily accompanies that ministry in the Church in Wales, [31].

The Tribunal accepted the submissions of both parties that the correct penalty is a monition, subject to conditions, and the Proctor’s submissions that such conditions should include a restriction preventing the Respondent holding an incumbent-level position until certain training and competencies can be demonstrated and certified by an experienced supervisor. Although it noted the efforts the Respondent had made to acquire the necessary understandings and competencies, it found that his request that he can be authorised to resume a full ministry and acquire the skills required “on the job” displayed a concerning lack of comprehension of the gravity of the matters he has admitted, [32].

The Tribunal reminded itself that the lack of oversight was not the fault of the Respondent, but nevertheless the Panel considered that completion of a period of ministry with equivalent oversight, mentoring and formative support is essential for the Respondent’s proper reintegration into ordained ministry, [33].

It therefore imposed a monition with a number of conditions that must be satisfied before consideration can be given to putting the Respondent in charge of a church organisation with ultimate responsibility. He will need to demonstrate an understanding of and commitment to the Constitution, Clergy Terms of Service and the demands imposed on a Charitable Trustee. The conditions are designed to ensure that this happens. The full details of the penalty imposed are set out in Annex A.

Comments on this post are closed

Footnote

This is a Case Note on the judgment of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Church in Wales in the case of the Reverend Ryan Forey on a referral by the Bishop of Llandaff. It does not explore additional material relating to Citizen Church on the Church of Wales web pages, and elsewhere.