Father David Gilmore fails to beat Church ban

Published: 8th April, 2011
by JOSH LOEB

A SOHO priest who was found guilty of inappropriate conduct by a disciplinary tribunal has failed in his bid to have the judgment quashed. 

Father David Gilmore appealed to the highest ecclesiastical court to challenge findings that he had held unwanted conversations of a sexual nature with two guests at his rectory in December 2009.

The London Diocese disciplinary tribunal, which was held in December, also accepted evidence that Father Gilmore had walked naked into the couple’s bedroom while they were having sex.

The Court of Arches, an appeal court officially presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, this week upheld the decision to remove Father Gilmore from his post and ban him from exercising ministry for two years.

Solicitor John Botros, for Father Gilmore, argued during the day-long hearing at Southwark cathedral on Monday that the sentence was “disproportionate” and said there had been a “funda­mental misunderstanding” of the evidence. 

He said Father Gilmore’s guests – they cannot be named for legal reasons and were referred to as A and B – had not been staying at St Anne’s as part of any official arrangement and had arrived late at night after consuming a large amount of alcohol.

Appealing for a mitigation of the sentence, he told the court he believed B had “teased” and flirted with the priest, who was appointed rector at the Dean Street church in 2008.  

He said: “They [A and B] were fuelled sexually, as well as in alcoholic terms, so that when they arrived at the rectory, to put not too fine a point on it, they were drunk. I’m not saying they were comatose. I’m not saying they were incapable. They were determined to engage in sexual activity as they made clear in the conversation... What I say is that the conduct of the Reverend Gilmore – and obviously there’s a dispute about what that conduct was – cannot be seen and looked at in isolation of these matters in the way that I believe the tribunal did ignore these matters.”

Mr Botros told the court A and B had left their bedroom door open while they engaged in sex the day after they arrived at the church.

“The open sexual activity of two strangers in a strange house with the door open – for them to behave in that way is to show utter disrespect and disdain for the hospitality of St Anne’s,” he said.

However, Adrian Iles, for the Diocese of London, told the court Father Gilmore had walked into A and B’s room knowing they were engaged in sex.

He said: “Father Gilmore accepts he was naked. He accepts he walked into the room in the knowledge that A and B were in there. His own evidence was that he peeped his head round the door and saw them engaged in sexual activity and then walked fully into the room. He accepts he did not leave until told in forthright terms to get out of there. He chose to stay because he was sexually aroused and enjoyed what he was watching.”

The panel of four senior Anglicans unanimously found there had been “no error in fact or in law” in the tribunal’s findings and expressed a wish that Father Gilmore would eventually return to work in the priesthood after his suspension ends.

The court also stated that Father Gilmore posed no risk to vulnerable or young people. 

In a statement the panel said: “We exercise the hope that Father Gilmore will, in due time and following a proper period of reflection on what has happened, be able to resume ordained ministry making use of his undoubted skills.” 

In his submissions, Mr Botros said Father Gilmore’s ministry had been “a source of enhancement to the reputation of the church in Soho” and described his suspen­sion as “a tragedy”. 

Father Gilmore was un­available for comment.