An earlier post Non-involvement with CDM proceedings (I) considered the impact of the removal from office of the Rev Karen Padley as Priest in Charge of St Lawrence Heanor, St Andrew Langley Mill, and St John Aldercar, and Vicar of All Saints Marlpool, by an Independent Tribunal established under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, and her prohibition from ministering as a priest in the Church of England for three years. In this post we review the associated Decision (7 January 2026) and Penalty (31 March 2026) of the Tribunal, reported on the Church of England web site (March 2026).

In the Matter of a Complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 before the Bishop’s Disciplinary for the Diocese of Derby

Determination

Two preliminary matters arose at the outset of the proceedings, viz. whether the hearing could proceed in the absence of the Respondent and whether to grant an application for the drawing of an adverse inference due to non-attendance [1].

Whether the hearing can proceed in the absence of the Respondent

The Rule 42 Clergy Discipline Rules 2005 provides the Chair with a wide discretion; it states:

“The Registrar of Tribunals or the Chair may proceed with a hearing notwithstanding the absence of the complainant or the respondent, provided the Registrar of Tribunals or the Chair is satisfied that the absent person has had notice of the hearing or that written notice of the hearing has been duly sent or delivered in accordance with Rule 101.”

There was no doubt that the Rev Karen Padley was aware of the hearing date of the proceedings [1].

“In considering whether to proceed in her absence, consideration must be given to the overriding objective to deal fairly with all parties treating each on an equal procedural footing, keeping the parties informed of the allegations and avoiding undue delay and expense…Not to proceed would simply result in further delay with no evidence that a different outcome would arise in the light of her repeated lack of response”[4].

The Chair concluded that the requirements of CDR 42 had been met; The Chair also considered that the overriding objective favours that the hearing goes ahead[5].

Application by the Designated Officer (DO) for a direction for an adverse inference

The Clergy Discipline Rules 2005 Rule 2(2), provides that “any failure to co-operate by a party may result in adverse inferences being made against that party at any stage of the proceedings” [6]. The Designated Officer sought an adverse inference finding in the light of the Respondent’s failure to engage with the process either by responding to correspondence or by attending the hearing [7]. However, whilst there had clearly been multiple failures to engage and participate, the Tribunal could not conclude that the failure was due to the Respondent’s unwillingness to submit her testimony to scrutiny nor necessarily because she did not have a case to answer. The Tribunal therefore declined to direct an adverse finding inference from the Respondent’s failure to engage with the proceedings [8].

Determination

On 30 October 2024, the Deputy President of Tribunals referred the following charges for determination to the Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal. The conduct of the Respondent…amounted to neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of her office within s.8(1)(c) of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and/or was conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders within s.8(1)(d) of the Measure in that she:

(i) Failed to respond to the complainant’s emails about making arrangements for either the respondent or the complainant to give home communion to a vulnerable person (Mrs C a longstanding worshipper who died in February 2024) thereby occasioning confusion and a risk of possible anxiety to Mrs C.

(ii) Failed persistently to communicate with, meet with or otherwise properly engage with the complainant, a clerical colleague in the same group of benefices in which they both minister together.

The Respondent Revd Karen Padley was ordained as a priest in 2001. She has been the vicar of Marlpool since 2004 and in 2016 she became priest in charge of Heanor and Langley Mill and Aldercar, Derby. The Complainant Revd Lisa Shemilt was ordained as a priest in 2006 and appointed associate minister in the benefices in 2016. They had at the outset been on good friendly terms and had worked well together professionally. From about 2020 there was a deterioration in the relationship when the Respondent failed to respond to communications from the complainant. The Complainant also attempted to communicate with the Respondent but received no response [10].

The Tribunal allowed the statements of the witnesses to stand as their evidence in chief and asked additional questions of the witnesses, [11] to [14]. The Complainant confirmed that the relationship with the Respondent had been fulsome at the start but had deteriorated from 16 March 2021. She had become extremely difficult for anyone to deal with. The communication to her had been largely through email and occasional telephone messages. She reported that it had not been a gradual deterioration, it was “like a tap being turned off”, it just stopped.

[…]

The Complainant reported on parishioners who had felt very strongly against the respondent taking funeral services; such was the strength of feeling that one family had gone elsewhere for their funeral service. The complainant stated that she was aware of the respondent exhibiting rudeness and that she could be dominant and domineering in her contact with others [12].

The Venerable Karen Hamblin also gave evidence as a witness in support of the Complainant relying on her written statement as her evidence in chief. She reported that she had previously been colleagues with the Respondent discussing matters of relevance to the diocese and to their ministries…There was anecdotal evidence that prior to Covid the respondent had not always been easy to communicate with and her response to communications had been intermittent…The respondent was looking after her father who had passed away in August 2025 [13].

In her submissions to the Tribunal, the DO relied on the evidence of the Complainant as cogent, consistent and credible. The Complainant had been concerned at the respondent’s conduct but had not herself stopped communicating with the respondent seeking to keep her informed and assisting if there were difficulties. Any anxiety on the part of the Respondent could have been avoided by a simple response [14].

Decision

The Tribunal found the facts alleged were proved. The accounts given by the Complainant and the witness have been clear, consistent and credible and remain unchallenged by the Respondent or by any other evidence. It stated:

“It is not for the panel to speculate or guess the Respondent’s position. She has had many opportunities to put forward a defence or explanation but has repeatedly failed to do so. We are satisfied that the matters raised by the Complainant occurred and that the Respondent’s failure to respond in each of the instances alleged amounted to neglect and inefficiency in the performance of her duties” [16]

It found the Respondent’s behaviour to be puzzling and in the face of many opportunities to act otherwise, to have been disappointing in one tasked with important duties in her role. Having found the matters proved the Tribunal did not move to a consideration of penalties but concluded that the Respondent should be given the opportunity to present mitigation and/or submissions regarding penalty in accordance with directions to be given following this determination [17].

Determination of the Tribunal on Penalty

The decision on penalty was deferred in order to receive submissions from the parties. In accordance with Rule 51 CDR 2005, the Panel invited The Bishop of Derby, The Rt Revd Libby Lane, to express her views as to the appropriate penalty [2]. The Respondent did not attend the hearing on 31 March 2026, and had received directions for  submissions, as she had failed to attend the hearing on 24 November 2025. The Panel was satisfied that the Respondent had decided to continue to deliberately absent herself from attendance at these proceedings, as she has done throughout [3].

The Panel considered the Clergy Discipline Commission’s March 2023 Guidance on Penalties in particular Paragraph 3 which deals with misconduct in public ministry and the trust placed in the clergy by members of the Church and by the wider community[5]. It found that the Respondent’s misconduct was a deliberate and damaging failure to comply with the high standards of Christian behaviour set out in the Ordinal required of clergy [6].

Approach to Penalty

In deciding upon the appropriate Penalty, the Panel considered all the material that has been placed before it[7]; it adopted a staged approach to penalty, applying the Clergy Discipline Commission’s ‘Guidance on Penalties’, and conscious of the need to act fairly, justly, and proportionately[8], and also considered Paragraph 6 of the Guidance which provides that any penalty should be proportionate to the misconduct involved[9].

Stage 1 – Harm and Culpability: The Panel considered that the caused to the Complainant was severe as set out in harm the Victim Impact Statement. But the harm was caused more widely to the congregation, as was clear from the examples instanced in the first hearing and to the public in terms of confidence in the Church and damage to the reputation of the Church.

The Respondent’s actions took place suddenly and in such a way as to seriously disturb and undermine the Complainant’s own duties and responsibilities and in a way which disregarded the trust the congregation placed in Church leaders. Culpability was high as there was deliberate and utter failure to engage with the Complainant despite all efforts to reach out to her[10].

Stage 2 – Aggravating and Mitigating factors: The Panel considered as aggravating factors that the conduct was persistent and prolonged…The extent of her ministry, encompassing 3 benefices, would result in her conduct being widely felt…Over this
prolonged period of non-contact and attempts to reach her, she did not take the opportunity to reflect upon and/or alter her conduct in any way[11].

In so far as mitigating factors are concerned the Panel could not find any were present. The Panel was aware that the misconduct found took place during the Covid pandemic and that at some time the Respondent’s father was said to have been unwell. But none of these facts, nor any others, were submitted by the Respondent as grounds of mitigation. It is not for the Panel to speculate as to what may or may not have been a relevant mitigating factor[12].

Stage 3 – Penalty: In determining the appropriate penalty, the Panel was conscious of the necessity that any penalty imposed should be proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct found proved. The Panel considered the penalty in reverse order of seriousness. Having concluded that the threshold for prohibition from ministry had been crossed, and that none of the lesser penalties would be sufficient, the Panel considered whether there was a realistic prospect that the Respondent could be rehabilitated into public ministry if provided with the appropriate training and support[16].

Notwithstanding that the Respondent had not engaged, had not shown remorse or indicated any explanation for her behaviour and had declined to participate in or engage with these proceedings, in the Panel’s view, there was a prospect of rehabilitation if the Respondent chooses to engage. Rehabilitation could enable her to return to ministry and would also ensure protection from repetition of such misconduct in the future. In coming to that conclusion the Panel drew re-assurance from the fact that following limited prohibition there is a formal process of assessment prior to any return to ministry[17].

The Panel’s view, which was shared by the Designated Officer, was that the length of the prohibition should be 3 years after which there would be no automatic right to return to ministry. Pastoral colleagues, congregations and the public would be protected as re-admission will involve a process of independent assessment undertaken for, and to advise, the Bishop[18].

Accordingly, the Panel unanimously concluded that the only appropriate penalty in all the circumstances of this case, was one of removal from the offices of Incumbent of the benefice of Marlpool, priest in charge of the benefice of Heanor and priest in charge of the benefice of Langley Mill with Aldercar, all in the diocese of Derby with immediate effect and that the Reverend Karen Padley is prohibited from the exercise of any of the functions of her Holy Orders for 3 years from 31 March 2026 [20].

Comment

The Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 became fully effective on 1 January 2006,  since when Tribunals have addressed approximately 50 referrals. The relatively few that have proceeded without the participation of the Respondent will be reviewed in a subsequent post. That of Rev Karen Padley is unusual in that it was conducted despite complete absence of involvement, and demonstrates how the the current CDM procedure attempts to address the interests of all parties, even those who do not participate.

[1] “She has been kept informed and given information by the Registrar of Tribunals; She has been sent correspondence including by personal service, attempts have been made to contact her by telephone and she has not responded; She was warned in correspondence that the case could proceed in her absence if she continued not to engage; She was informed that if she did not have legal representation she could apply for ecclesiastical legal aid to support legal costs incurred in the proceedings; She has not responded to any correspondence, she has not challenged any evidence and has not produced any evidence in support of her case; She is not of course required to instruct a solicitor, she is entitled to represent herself, but she has not taken either course”. [3].