December 2016Lavinia Woodward stabs her boyfriend; in the absence of welfare provision in the College that day, the Dean had to take charge of the case
Early 2017The Dean calls a meeting to clarify safeguarding procedures; asks for job descriptions of the College’s Censors
Summer 2017Dean asks the College’s Salaries Board to review his salary, as well as those of two other College officers, one being the Treasurer
October 2017David Hine, Senior ex-Censor, emails wider ex-Censors group, saying the Dean must be got rid of because he was making everyone miserable
Autumn 2017Geraldine Johnson, new Junior Censor, expresses her worries about who was responsible for welfare and queried safeguarding training
Autumn 2018The Censors laid a complaint against the Dean of “immoral, scandalous or disgraceful” conduct
Autumn 2018The Dean is suspended, pending a Tribunal
Summer 2019A tribunal, chaired by retired High Court judge Sir Andrew Smith, takes place. Sir Andrew dismisses the two main and 27 subsidiary complaints in their entirety; one minor technical breech of fiduciary duty regarding a £500 lawyers’ bill is cited
27 August 2019The Dean’s suspension is lifted
March 2020The College announces a number of safeguarding cases handled by the Dean were causing concern and had been passed to the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team (NST); the Dean was not given any advance notice of this action
April 2020College’s Governing Body, including chief Cathedral Safeguarding Officer Graham Ward, writes to the Charity Commission, complaining the Dean has no “moral compass”; this leads to the Charity Commission requiring both parties to enter into meaningful mediation
16 April 2020Rev’d Jonathan Aitken raises a complaint to the Chief Executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority about WSLaw partner Alison Talbot’s handling of the case
September 2020Church of England announces there was no substance to the safeguarding allegations passed to the NST; the Dean is fully exonerated
October 2020The Dean was faced with a single allegation: of briefly touching the hair of a female employee. To address this, the following four concurrent legal processes were initiated: i. A Police investigation – dismissed early December 2020; ii. Church of England proceedings in the Clergy Discipline Measure – decision that it would be disproportionate to take it further made by the President of Tribunals in May 2021; iii. An investigation by the National Safeguarding Team, concluded with no action recommended in June 2021; iv. The second and current Christ Church Statute XXXIX Part VII procedure.
October 2020A preliminary heading, following the Dean launching an Employment Tribunal case, reaches procedural findings in his favour
4 October 2020Encounter in the Christ Church College vestry between the Dean and ‘X’, who claimed the Dean complimented on and touched her hair; ‘X’ had lunch with the Revd Clare Hayns, the College Chaplain, who also complimented her on her hair; matters escalated – an allegation of harrassment was soon treated as an allegation about safeguarding
11 October 2020Complaint sent by ‘X’ to the Sub-Dean
13 October 2020Dean told by the Sub-Dean that an allegation of harrassment had been raised against him and an investigation by someone independent, who he, together with Prof Ian Watson, would appoint, would take place
14 October 2020Prof Ian Watson, Censor Theologiae, gives evidence against Martyn Percy at the preliminary Employment Tribunal hearing
18 October 2020Kate Wood appointed “independent investigator”; provided with a set of Terms of Reference which had been legally drafted, presumably by WSLaw; also invited to express an opinion on a) whether Martyn Percy had breeched clergy harassment or disciplinary policies b) whether Christ Church needed to invoke safeguarding procedures c) whether the matter shouldbe treated as one of discipline and/or safeguarding d) whether she immediately advises that Martyn Percy poses a safeguarding risk so additional restrictions needed to apply to him e) whether he should be reported to the Police and local area Safeguarding teams
19 October 2020Martyn Parcy told of Kate Wood’s appointment
21 October 2020Dean interviewed over Zoom by Kate Wood
27 October 2020Kate Wood reports the complainant’s account is wholly credible and the complaints consitute a breach of safeguarding; she recommends the matter be referred to the Police, LADO and the Charity Commission; also considers that there had been a breech of Christ Church harrassment policies and that the case should be treated as a safeguarding matter
4 November 2020Canon Graham Ward writes to the Bishop of Oxford
5 November 2020Canon Graham Ward is in receipt of ‘X’s Police witness statement and raises a complaint with the Bishop of Oxford under a Clergy Discipline Matter (CDM)
19 November 2020Bishop of Oxford publicly crticises Martyn Percy’s supporters for “downplaying” the severity of the complaint”
November
2020
The Church launches a NST safeguarding inquiry; John Rees, registrar for the Diocese of Oxford and a consultant to WSLaw which is acting for Christ Church in trying to remove the Dean, is part of the core group
22
November
2020
Martyn Percy is interviewed by the Police, who decide “no further action” is necessary
Late November 2020Redacted copy of Kate Wood’s report circulated to Governing Body
2 December 2020Disciplinary and safeguarding issues highlighted in Kate Wood’s report are used by a group within the College’s Governing Body to provide the basis for a tribunal under Christ Church statutes to remove the Dean
February 2021The College commissioned the President of Welsh Tribunals, Sir Wyn Williams, to give an opinion on whether or not it was legal and proportionate to prosecute the Dean once again under Statute XXXIX for “immoral, scandalous and disgraceful conduct”.
 
Christ Church Governing Body sought to quell Charity Commission unease and alumni objections that a second tribunal would be expensive and disproportionate.  Williams concluded that “on the basis of the documents supplied to him by Christ Church, so far as he could tell, it might be possible for the College to proceed with their prosecution”. 
 
However, Wyn Williams does not seem to have been informed of the concurrent legal processes initiated by the College and/pr it’s employees against the Dean, or of all the other previous attempts to remove the Dean. It is possible, or even likely, that he might have revised his opinion had he known that the Dean was being deliberately exposed to the likelihood of an unlawful ‘double jeopardy’.