The Methodist Church in Cornwall considered safeguarding as “political nonsense, adding a burden to ministers”, a court has heard.

The trial of the Reverend Steven James Wild, 72, has entered its third day. The former leader of the Methodist Church in Cornwall faces 11 charges relating to alleged sexual offences against several women between 2004 and 2019.

The jury heard from two complainants who were employees of the Methodist Church at the time of the alleged incidents.

The first to take the stand described how Rev Wild had fallen to his knees in prayer and touched her on two specific occasions. Of the first, at the main church conference in Southport, she told prosecution barrister Brian Fitzherbert: “I felt shame that someone had touched me who was not my husband. I tested this out with a friend and she just laughed and said, ‘That’s just Steve being Steve.’ I felt that to report it was difficult.”

She would later work with Rev Steven Wild, and described a meeting a few years later in which she and the defendant were alone in a room: “I placed him at the opposite end of a round table, as far as I could. He came around the table without warning, dropped to his knees and put his hand around my waist and the small of my back and started praying.” She confirmed these actions were similar to the first occasion.

Asked what she was thinking, she replied: “How to get out of this room. I can’t slap his face or shout at him – he’s holding the most senior role in the Methodist Church.” The complainant confirmed she reported the incident to her line manager: “We decided that if I wasn’t safe in a private meeting room with Rev Wild, I should only have those meetings in a communal workspace.”

She confirmed, however, that this was “difficult” if confidential matters had to be discussed, resulting in further occasions which were also reported to her line manager. Sometimes meetings took place at her desk in front of a computer screen: “If I leaned forward for the screen, his hand would be in the small of my back. I remember him touching my arm, my leg, anything he could reach from his chair next to me.”

She became involved in the police investigation in 2023 following a conversation with a colleague.

Defence barrister Heather Hope asked the complainant if kneeling and praying with people was something Steven Wild often would do, and if it was “sometimes, because of his nature, an impulsive act – that he would be with someone and engage in prayer with them in a spontaneous way?” The complainant agreed.

“Did you consider saying to him … ‘I prefer not to be touched? Please would you mind not doing that?’” The complainant replied: “I did say that and I moved to be as far away from him as possible. My body language and words should have been interpreted as me being very uncomfortable.”

Ms Hope showed the judge and jury a letter the complainant had sent Mr Wild in 2021 following his suspension, which said: “This comes to assure you of my love and prayers during what must be a difficult time for you and your family.”

The complainant replied: “I need to resist the point you are making. It’s a card to say life is difficult and you are not forgotten by other people and your former colleagues. It is not a letter of support.” She said she “must have sent hundreds of cards like these”.

She added: “I have been touched inappropriately by other people. Elderly people at the end of service have tried to kiss me on the lips. People behave inappropriately. Someone in seniority in the life of the church should know better, and model better things.”

Another complainant explained how she had been interviewed for a job by a panel including Steven Wild. She later attended the national conference and went out for an evening meal, during which Steven Wild arrived. “He was excited. He’d had a great day and was very happy,” she recalled under questioning by Mr Fitzherbert.

Rev Wild sat next to the complainant. “He put his hand on my upper thigh and left it there for the duration of a story he was telling,” she said. His fingers, she confirmed, were “on the top of my inner thigh”.

Asked how she felt, she replied: “I was panicking, not happy at all. It felt like a complete crossing of boundaries, but I did not know what to do. It was a big day for Steve, who was at the height of his position.”

“Did you say anything?” asked Mr Fitzherbert? “No, it would have been making a fuss, and that isn’t my thing to do,” she said. “It would have been conflicting. What would I say? … and he was in full flow of a very energetic story. I was silenced by the situation, I suppose.”

She added: “I felt the people I would have told professionally, it would instigate a process that could basically finish my career, and I had only just started in my role. Steve was a very influential man, he could open doors for me – and he did – or he could close them.”

Questioned about the attitude towards safeguarding at that time, the complainant said: “Safeguarding was seen as a burden put on ministers by the centre of the church, adding phrases such as “political nonsense, adding a burden to ministers, all things said to us while we were doing training, particularly in Cornwall”.

Asked if she was aware of Mr Wild’s reputation as a “tactile person” and the church’s attitude towards this, she added: “It was often talked about … you could see it everywhere you went. I certainly had a concern about it. People would say, that’s just Steve, he’s such a character, such a warm person, that’s just who he is.”

Ms Hope produced a photograph of those present on the evening in question and showed it to the jury and Recorder Richard Stead. She said: “Steven Wild was someone who would regularly be seen hugging and being tactile with various different people, is that fair? And that included men and women?” The complainant replied: “Yes.”

“And the phrase that was used about ‘just Steve being Steve’ was something that was used widely by people who interacted with him?” The complainant responded: “It felt like a thing everyone knew but no one took seriously.”

The trial continues on Monday morning.