Married clergyman defrocked for having an affair given 28 days to vacate his vicarage

- Daily Mail Reporter 23rd June 2009


A married clergyman barred from office for having an affair with a woman who went to him for counselling was today given 28 days to leave his vicarage.

The Reverend Patrick Okechi was told by a judge that Church of England Bishops of Lichfield and Wolverhampton were entitled to repossess the house in West Bromwich, West Midlands.

Mr Okechi, the former vicar of the Church of the Good Shepherd with St John in West Bromwich, had refused to vacate the vicarage after being found guilty last December of conduct unbecoming to the office and work of a clerk in holy orders.

The married father-of-three was removed from his post and banned from working as a priest for 10 years by a Church of England disciplinary tribunal.
He had denied sending text messages and a letter to the woman, described only as Mrs A., who was separated from her husband.

The hearing was told that the woman, who was 13 years older than the vicar, met Mr Okechi at a marriage blessing and started attending his church.
The tribunal was told that he 'put his arm around her and said he thought he loved her'.

At the time she became the church cleaner, the vicar began visiting her regularly and they started having sex.  

Mrs A. claimed that on one night, when Mr Okechi's wife had locked him out of their bedroom, he turned up at her house in a dressing gown and flip-flops and they had sex. The vicar denied this and insisted that he never wore flip-flops.

Granting possession of the vicarage to the two bishops and the Archdeacon of Walsall, District Judge Simon Bull said he was satisfied from legal submissions that Mr Okechi did not have the right to remain in possession of it.

The judge, who described aspects of the law governing the case as arcane, had questioned at a previous hearing whether bishops had the right to evict the ex-vicar.

Judge Bull had been urged to allow the clergyman, his wife and their children to remain at the vicarage until the outcome of a claim for unfair dismissal was known.
But the judge told today's hearing that it was 'doubtful' the defendant would be allowed to pursue the employment tribunal proceedings, which could not re-establish a right to possession of the vicarage.

Mr Okechi was given 28 days to leave the property after Judge Bull ruled that a shorter period would cause exceptional hardship to two of his children, who are currently studying for exams.
The Rev Okechi had little to say as he attempted to avoid the waiting media by leaving court through a fire exit.
'It (the possession order) will make no difference, we were expecting it anyway,' the former vicar said.

The Diocese of Lichfield stressed that, although it was thankful for the judge's ruling, it was not a matter for celebration.
Diocesan spokesman Gavin Drake said: 'Any possession hearing is a sad day for somebody.
'However, the circumstances that led to today's hearing are not the actions of the diocese.'

Mr Drake added that the parish concerned needed to move forward and had not been able to appoint a new vicar due to the Rev Okechi's refusal to move.
Mr Drake went on: 'This is not a good time for Patrick or his family. This is not a judgment that we celebrate, even though we are thankful for it.'
The Rev Okechi had been offered appropriate counselling and support throughout his difficulties, Mr Drake noted.

Case law from 1842 was cited during today's hearing and legal inquiries into the status of the vicarage examined law dating as far back as 1558.
'It is a complex area of law - it involved researching case law from several hundred years ago, but in the end it's a very simple principle of law,' Mr Drake said. 'When there's no incumbent (vicar) in post, the bishop has possession of the whole of the property of the parish.'

Men are such dogs
This is good punishment
next time he'll learn to keep his John Thomas under check

$osisi:

Men are such dogs

generalizations aren't cool

"Men are such dogs"


If you claim it was a dog who impregnated your mum and gave birth to you, then what are you?
It's not hard to know some women's "time of the month"


Dear Tpiah and others who are fond of accusing NL men of being too rude to the women, I await your comments on this!

This is classic behaviour of a spirit filled man of god. . .

gen2genius:

"Men are such dogs"


If you claim it was [b]a dog who impregnated your mum and gave birth to yo[/b]u, then what are you?
It's not hard to know some women's "time of the month"


Dear Tpiah and others who are fond of accusing NL men of being too rude to the women, I await your comments on this!

Must u stoop so low to use this words of a maladroit?

gen2genius:

"Men are such dogs"


If you claim it was a dog who impregnated your mum and gave birth to you, then what are you?
It's not hard to know some women's "time of the month"

Well you see by her post that she sef barks like a dog. So she must be a dog too.

Men are such dogs

and the women that lead them into temptation are ?

"Must u stoop so low to use this words of a maladroit?"

Some men can be so smarmy. What's "stooping so low" in helping someone think deeper about the meaning and implications of their comments. If someone claims men are dogs, does that exclude any man?

If I said women are bitches, would you be "stooping so low" if you reminded me that that also includes my mother and sisters? Apply logic, please, not political correctness!