The appellant was the incumbent of a benefice in the diocese of York. A clergy discipline tribunal had determined that his conduct had been unbecoming of a clerk in holy orders in respect of his relationship with a woman to whom he was not married.Footnote ² The tribunal had imposed a penalty amounting to immediate deprivation from his preferment and prohibition from exercise of the function of his orders for four years. The appeal was against penalty only. The appellant claimed that the sentence was excessively severe, took no account of the appellant's pastoral care of his benefice and previous parishes, and did not give credit for the time that he had been suspended from duty pending the determination of the tribunal. The court dismissed all three points of the appeal and upheld the penalty imposed. In dismissing the appeal, the court noted that, while the Clergy Discipline Commission's Guidelines on Penalties mention removal from office and prohibition as ‘usually appropriate in cases of adultery’, such a penalty may also be appropriate in cases such as this one where the misconduct had fallen short of adultery. The court upheld the tribunal's finding that the appellant was guilty of serious misconduct and that the penalty imposed was appropriate. The court found that the tribunal had given proper regard to the evidence before them of the appellant's character and pastoral skills, and noted that the appellant had at no time shown repentance or remorse. The court held that there was a distinction between the bishop's discretionary power to suspend a priest during proceedings under the Measure and a penalty imposed by the tribunal for proven misconduct. The court stated that ‘we do not consider that a period of suspension should be taken into account when a disciplinary tribunal, or this court, is determining the appropriate penalty in a particular case’. In this case, the period of prohibition was ordered to begin on the date of the confirmation of the penalty by the Chancery Court. [WA]