In his report to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the top ecclesiastical lawyer, Judge Rupert Bursell, QC, ruled that there was "sufficient substance" to justify disciplinary proceedings against Dr Butler "in relation to the complaint of drunkenness".

John Adams, a former churchwarden from Croydon, submitted a formal complaint against his bishop, who was found bloodied with a black eye and a bump on the head outside Bishop's House in Streatham, South London, several hours after leaving the Irish Embassy last December.

The Bishop was seen throwing children's toys out of the window of a stranger's car and, when challenged, is reported to have said: "I'm the Bishop of Southwark - it's what I do."

At first he said he had been mugged. Later, he suggested that a neurological affliction might have been to blame for his memory loss. However, witnesses claimed that he had been drinking too much.

Last month the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said that no further action would be taken against the bishop under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, despite a 20-page report submitted privately from Judge Bursell this year, which stated that there was enough evidence to support allegations that Dr Butler had been drunk. In the preliminary report, Judge Bursell, acting as deputy to the Archbishop's Registar, wrote: "Having analysed the evidence on which you must reach your decision it is my view that there is substantial evidence to support Mr Adams's contention that the bishop was drunk on the night in question.

"It is also my view that such drunkenness (if it occurred) was more serious because of the Bishop's office in the Church," he said. "While a one-off occasion of drunkenness cannot amount to a habit, one occasion of public drunkenness may well amount to a failure to fashion a cleric's life according to the doctrine of Christ and, certainly, may amount to a failure to make himself a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ or to make himself an example of righteous and godly living."

He continued by noting that drunkenness was not only a ground for "deprivation of office" under old church law, but more recent guidance suggests that "drunkenness without any aggravating features should normally be met with a rebuke or a conditional deferment or discharge".

However, under the 2003 Measure, a complaint against a bishop must be brought by someone who has a "proper interest" in the shortcomings of any cleric. No priests or other lay people complained formally over the incident. The judge therefore recommended that the Archbishop dismiss the complaint because Mr Adams was not a person who "has a proper interest in making a complaint". He explained: "Every Anglican has in one sense an 'interest' in the discipline of the clergy but that does not mean they have a 'proper' interest on each occasion."

Although Mr Adams is a regular worshipper in the Church of England, he said: "In my view, that is not sufficient to give him a proper interest in instituting proceedings against his diocesan bishop."

Mr Adams said he had decided not to take matters further.

David Price, the bishop's lawyer, said last night: "My client produced credible evidence to show he was not drunk on the night in question and this was accepted by the Archbishop of Canterbury."

A Lambeth Palace spokesman said that Judge Bursell's was a preliminary report, not a judgment, and was written before any evidence was presented on behalf of the Bishop. He said: "The complaint by Mr Adams was dismissed on the basis of the legal advice given to the Archbishop in Chancellor Bursell's report. However, as a result of that legal advice, the Archbishop considered that it would be unhelpful to leave matters as they stood.

"He therefore caused further investigation to take place and a separate complaint was then laid. In the light of the further evidence . . . he decided on legal advice that no further action should be taken.

"It is not the case that his decision in May was based on the report he received earlier in the year."

He added that medical evidence was submitted which stated that the Bishop's "amnesia is certainly entirely explicable on the basis of his head injuries".

- How his story changed

Wednesday, December 6 Bishop tells his congregation he was mugged after the previous night's function

Friday, December 8 He says when he got home he was "without his briefcase and mobile phone and had several fresh head wounds"

Sunday, December 10 After reports of drunkenness, Dr Butler admits he could not remember the incident. He said he had "a drink" at the function. He said: "I don't remember anything . . . I arrived home without my briefcase and with bruising on my face and a gash on my head. There was this story about me being in a car at London Bridge, which I remember absolutely nothing about. I went to the doctor . . . and was told my injuries were consistent with a blow to the head, so I assumed I had been mugged, but that's a supposition"

Monday, December 11 As clergy called on their bishop to issue a statement of repentance and regret, he repeated that he had no memory of the episode

Tuesday, December 19 Dr Butler says that being intoxicated would have been "entirely out of character". "It's very worrying, I still have amnesia." Dr Butler said he had been going to similar receptions for 20 years and was always "very careful" about his alcohol intake

END

Bishop was drunk after Christmas party, leaked report says. Lambeth Palace says it is "misleading"

by Jonathan Jennings
June 06th 2007

A report in today's Times is headlined Bishop was drunk after Christmas Party, leaked report says (online version as at 12.35am; wording for other versions may differ). The headline accompanies a story about a report into allegations around an incident last December involving the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Dr Tom Butler.

The suggestion in the headline that the report has concluded that the Bishop was drunk is completely misleading. It comes as a result of a misunderstanding of 1) what the report, prepared by Chancellor Bursell, is intended to address, 2) the stage it represents in the procedures of clergy discipline, and 3) the untested nature of the allegations which were set out in the complaint.

The report in question was a preliminary report, intended merely to assess whether - if true - the allegations made by the complainant would be strong enough to justify proceeding further with the disciplinary process under the Clergy Discipline Measure. The report's finding is that some of the allegations - if true - would be serious enough to justify being taken on to the next stage. Some allegations it discounts.

At this preliminary stage, no explanation or answer by the person complained against is required or expected. Only at the next stage would the opportunity be given to the person complained against to give his side of the story. This report, therefore, is based on only the complainant's account.

For that reason, the report does not make any judgement as to the truth of the allegations. A footnote makes it clear that other evidence 'may in due time put a different complexion on the matter' and, crucially, a clause in brackets makes it clear that the question of the truth of any allegation is yet to be determined: Chancellor Bursell qualifies references to the alleged drunkenness in the complaint with the phrase 'if it occurred'.

The finding of the report was that the complaint was sufficiently serious to justify further exploration under the Measure. Although the complainant was not qualified under the Measure to bring it forward, a subsequent complaint was taken to the next stage in the disciplinary process, enabling the bishop to give his own account of what had happened. It was only at that point, on the basis of all the evidence then before the Archbishop, that he took the decision, announced last month, that no further action should be taken.

It would, therefore, be entirely misleading to represent this preliminary report as being any kind of judgement or finding that the Bishop of Southwark was drunk on the night in question.

---The Revd Jonathan Jennings is the Archbishop of Canterbury's Press Secretary