On 26 February 2026, the Church in Wales published the findings of a review into the way in which Anthony Pierce, the former Bishop of Swansea and Brecon, was appointed to senior church roles in the 1990s, despite senior clergy knowing of sexual abuse allegations against him. This present post includes extracts from the Disciplinary Tribunal to which he was referred on the grounds that he engaged in conduct giving just cause for scandal or offence contrary to Chapter IX, Paragraph 9(c) of the Constitution of the Church in Wales.

There have been a number of referrals to the Tribunal on similar grounds, but here the Court commented (at [20]): “The Church in Wales has never before found itself in the circumstance of deposing a Bishop from their Orders.”

IN THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL OF THE CHURCH IN WALES

AND IN THE MATTER OF A REFERRAL IN RESPECT OF RIGHT REVEREND ANTHONY EDWARD PIERCE

JUDGMENT, [1] to [3]

1. By Reference dated the 10th April 2025 the then Archbishop of Wales, Andrew John, and the Bishop of Swansea and Brecon jointly referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Church in Wales the Right Reverend Anthony Edward Pierce (‘the Respondent’), the grounds of the referral being that the Respondent engaged in conduct giving just cause for scandal or offence contrary to Chapter IX, Paragraph 9(c) of the Constitution of the Church in Wales(‘The Constitution’).

2. The grounds for the referral were that on the 12th March 2025 the Respondent was sentenced to a period of 4 years and one month imprisonment, was placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register indefinitely and was made the subject of a Barring Order.

3. The Reference from the Archbishop and Bishop enclosed the relevant Certificate of Conviction from the Crown Court. In accordance with S11(4) of Chapter IX of the Constitution, the preliminary stage of the Tribunal Proceedings was dispensed with and the matter set down for full hearing on 3rd November 2025.

THE BACKGROUND, [4] to [5]

4. The conviction relates to various dates between the late 1980s and early 1990s when, whilst serving as Parish Priest in West Cross Swansea, the Respondent committed acts of indecent assault on a parishioner, a boy aged approximately 14-15 years at the date of the first offences…

5. At the time of the incidents giving rise to the convictions, the Respondent was a Parish Priest, but in 1999 he was elected Diocesan Bishop of Swansea and Brecon. The matters before us are limited to those giving rise to the conviction, although likely because of his subsequent appointment from which he retired in 2008, the referral to us came from both the Diocesan Bishop of the Diocese in which the offences took place, and the [then] Archbishop of Wales.

THE LAW, [6] to [9]

6. The Proctor, Ms Helen Randall, of Counsel, brings the case and the burden rests on her to prove the case upon the balance of probabilities. However, in accordance with Rule 31 of the Tribunal’s rules a certificate of conviction in criminal proceedings is to be regarded as conclusive proof that the acts therein specified were committed by the person named in the document. This only issue  before us, therefore was whether the Proctor was able to prove that the set out in the Certificate constituted conduct giving just cause for scandal or offence.

[…]

9. Given the facts that prompted this Referral we do not need to trouble ourselves with a detailed consideration of precisely what scandalous or offensive mean. We accept the meanings ascribed to them by common usage.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT, [10] to [15]

The Respondent did not appear before the Tribunal, and indicated that he did not wish to attend the hearing or be represented. However, the Tribunal  later received two character references (sent directly to the Tribunal by the authors), the second of which asked it “to consider the environment at the time of the offending and how matters have changed since then“. The writer said “Bishop Anthony’s behaviour was as wrong when it happened as it is now, but our understanding of the impact of such actions has changed. I think we have to be careful not to make judgements of past events based on current thinking” [14].

The Tribunal was unable to accept this proposition and stated: “15. Child sexual abuse is child sexual  abuse whether it happened 35 years ago or now. The damage it causes has not  altered with the passage of time and in our judgment the fact that understanding of that damage may have developed over the relevant period provides no  mitigation to the gravity of the Respondent’s actions. In any event, in the criminal proceedings the Respondent was sentenced in accordance with the law as it  stood at the time of his offending, and received an immediate custodial  sentence of over four years” [15].

OUR DECISION, [16] to [17]

16. We have no doubt that the facts which led to the convictions were scandalous and would, in the eyes of a person of reasonably robust persuasion, be regarded as both scandalous and offensive. The information before us shows that Mr Pierce knowingly entered into a course of conduct which is undoubtedly inherently wrong, in the eyes of both the Church and wider society. His failure to confess what he had done when he was considered for preferment is an indication of a clear hope that he would never be found out.

17. We thus find the charge proved.

THE PENALTY, [18] to [24] 

18. Chapter IX of the Constitution of the Church in Wales sets out at Paragraph 18 the powers of sentence open to the Disciplinary Tribunal. They range from the most minor, an absolute discharge, to the most serious, the deposition from Holy Orders and expulsion from the office of a Cleric in the Church in Wales.

19. This is clearly a case which demands the most serious of sanctions…We find that the only appropriate sanction that is consonant with the gravity of his offending is for Mr Pierce to be deposed from Holy Orders.

20. The Church in Wales has never before found itself in the circumstance of deposing a Bishop from their Orders. Section 42 of Chapter IX of the Constitution envisages the duty falling to the Bishop of the Diocese where the cleric holds, or last held, office. It does not make separate provision for Bishops, although a Bishop clearly falls within the Constitutional definition of a Cleric. However, we are mindful that powers of deprivation of Bishops (and other disciplinary sanctions) were vested in the Metropolitan prior to disestablishment [1]. For the avoidance of doubt and uncertainty, we believe the appropriate way forward is for the Archbishop and the Diocesan Bishop jointly to execute a deed of deposition.

21. We therefore direct the present Archbishop of Wales, jointly with the Diocesan Bishop of Swansea and Brecon, to depose the Right Reverend Anthony Edward Pierce from Holy Orders and to expel him from the office of Cleric in the Church in Wales.

The Tribunal further commented that It was worth noting the effects of a deed of  deposition, here, the effects of which are the same as a deed of relinquishment.

[1] See Halsbury’s Laws of England (1st edition, 1910), Ecclesiastical volume, para 726.

This post was first published on 2 March 2026.