A JURY has heard how a Methodist minister’s “tactile” nature was part of his ministry and in no way sexual.

Steven James Wild, former chair of Cornwall district for the Methodist church and a one-time holder of its highest office, conference president, took the stand today (Thursday, November 12) at Truro Crown Court.

Mr Wild, 72, of Steeple Close, St Ives, is charged with 10 counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault between 2004 and 2019. The alleged incidents are said to have taken place in Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly, Devon, Southport, Bristol and Derbyshire. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The morning began with the reading of a transcript from a police interview at Camborne Police Station. Regarding the testimony of one of the women, who alleged Mr Wild had placed his hand on her upper thigh, he said: “I would say categorically that I cannot remember that. Certainly I would not have done that deliberately. There is nothing in me that would do that for some sort of thrill.”

In the dock, Mr Wild was questioned by defence barrister Heather Hope, who asked him about the concept of “faith hugging”. He explained how he had been part of a “charismatic” movement in the 1970s; asked if this had continued in the church, he replied: “Some are a bit stiff and starchy, and there wouldn’t be any hugging there.”

In the church attended by the first complainant, however, he said: “It was a charismatic church. There was lots of hugging of each other.” He added: “Sometimes you would peck someone on the cheek,” clarifying upon questioning that this would apply to either gender. The purpose, he said, was “a feeling of one-ness with the body of the cross”.

Asked if he had held the complainant tight and kissed her multiple times on the cheek, he replied: “No.” Recalling a meeting with the complainant to discuss the occasion in the presence of an intermediary, he said: “I was taken aback. I had hugged her and carried on with everyone else. I did not realise it had affected her so badly. I said I’m sorry you feel like this.”

Regarding the complainant’s allegation that she was accused of “doing Satan’s work”, Mr Wild said: “I do not talk about Satan like that … That’s not my style at all.”

After that meeting, he is accused of having repeated his behaviour with the complainant on a major trip he had organised. “I can’t imagine I would have done that because of what happened,” he said. “I would have wanted to keep well clear of that person. I’m surprised she came.”

Asked if the woman was someone he “found attractive or regarded in a sexual way,” he answered: “Not at all.”

The second complainant accused Mr Wild of cupping her buttocks with his hands during a hug at a national church event. “Was there any woman in which your hands were not around them but resting on their bottom?” He replied: “No.”

“As far as that mission was concerned, was there anyone who reacted in a way that caused you concern?” Again, Mr Wild replied: “No.”

Moving onto the third complainant, who met Mr Wild over a group meal at another event, Ms Hope said: “She describes your hand as sliding up her thigh. Did you?” He responded: “No – I’m tactile, but I would not do that.” He clarified “tactile” as meaning “touching”, adding: “I’ve always been like that.”

He added: “I have read what she said and I didn’t know she felt like that about me.”

Asked if he had pushed his groin into her thigh, as alleged, he said: “No, I did not do that – that’s a horrible thing.”

Mr Wild described the fourth complainant - who alleges Mr Wild stroked the small of her back during prayer on several occasions - as “sharp” and “a bit prickly”. He said he had offered to pray with her during a conference, and she had said: “Yes, please.”

He said: “When I pray with people, I put my hand on their shoulder - it’s very common among evangelicals,” adding: “There was no sexual intention in what I was doing.”

That complainant reported the incidents to her line manager. Mr Wild agreed he had been approached by a senior member of staff to discuss “touching people”, but said: “I thought it was more general, because I was travelling around the country, and I know some people don’t like being touched.”

Ms Hope asked: “Did you take it to heart? … Did it affect the way you behaved towards people?” Mr Wild replied: “Yes, I was aware he’d said that to me.” He said he did not remember further interactions of a similar nature with that complainant.

The fifth and final complainant also accused Mr Wild of touching her leg under the dinner table while telling stories to a group of people. “I might have put my hand on her leg, but it certainly wasn’t deliberately sexual,” he replied.

Ms Hope asked if Mr Wild still held onto his faith. “Absolutely yes,” he replied. Asked what the most important things were in his life, he said: “My relationship with Christ, my wife and children, and my mother.”

During the defence, Mr Wild often maintained a jovial demeanour when recalling events he felt had gone well, saying: “It was a great day.” Occasionally, he had to be brought back to the topic by the barristers and Recorder Richard Stead.

The mood changed in the afternoon, when prosecution barrister Brian Fitzherbert took over questioning. Presented with the allegations, Mr Wild often answered: “No,” “I did not,” and “That didn’t happen.”

Mr Fitzherbert pointed out the court had heard how Mr Wild had been approached on two separate occasions about how touching had upset female parishioners or employees.

“Did you think it was important to be careful touching people in the Methodist Church for their livelihoods?” he asked. Mr Wild replied: “Just to generally be careful.”

“The prosecution case is that you were a very powerful person in the Methodist Church,” said Mr Fitzherbert, adding: “People who depend on an institution for their livelihood … can find it difficult to challenge important people in that institution.”

He questioned whether Mr Wild thought “I’m going to touch people who I want to touch, and if they don’t challenge me, then that’s all right.” Mr Wild responded: “That’s not how my mind works.”

Mr Fitzherbert said Mr Wild had met the fourth complainant shortly after being spoken to about touching people. “The new approach to life you decided upon, ‘I’m going to keep a distance and be careful’ … had this all evaporated?”

Mr Wild complained that two incidences specifically had been “sexualised”. Regarding this, Mr Fitzherbert asked: “Was this sexual intimacy you were experiencing, Mr Wild?” He replied: “It certainly was not – no, no.”

Mr Fitzherbert asserted that many of the female complainants were in some way vulnerable, often by Mr Wild’s own admission. “Did you think vulnerable people would be less likely to complain to the church that provided them with their careers? Did you touch two of the women because their vulnerability made it safe for you to do so?”

Mr Wild replied: “No, it was not sexual. That would be the furthest from my mind – I’m a Christian disciple and I would not want to work my sexuality out in that way.”

Mr Fitzherbert referenced how two of the cases involved being seated at a table for dinner. “Did you think controlling table conversations would disguise your touching of women?” he asked? Mr Wild replied: “No.”

“Were you aware of people describing your tendency to touch people as ‘just Steve being Steve’?” asked Mr Fitzherbert. “Did you ever hear anyone say that about you?”

“No I didn’t,” he replied, adding: “I’m just Steve being enthusiastic.”

“Can you think of anything you have done to [these women] to make them want to describe you doing sexual acts that you did not do?” asked Mr Fitzherbert. “Put another way, have you done anything to any of these women to make them tell these lies about you?”

Mr Wild replied: “No, I haven’t.”

The trial continues tomorrow.