THE Archbishop of York made “some mistakes” in his handling of the case of David Tudor (News, 28 November 2025), but has “no case to reply in respect of which a disciplinary tribunal needs to be requested to adjudicate”, the President of Tribunals, Sir Stephen Males, has concluded.
Sir Stephen’s decision was published on the Church of England website on Friday, after a Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) criticism was brought against Archbishop Cottrell by “a victim of sexual abuse and abuse of power, committed by David Tudor in 1984 and 1985 when she was aged 15 and 16”.
Mr Tudor was the Team Rector of Canvey Island, in Chelmsford diocese, when Archbishop Cottrell was the diocesan bishop. Mr Tudor had been tried for rape of the complainant in 1988, but had been acquitted. Sir Stephen writes, nonetheless: “Even on David Tudor’s own account, what occurred constituted serious sexual abuse and a gross abuse of power on his part. . . It is clear that David Tudor had a sexual interest in teenage girls and was prepared to take advantage of his position to groom them, in gross breach of trust, with a view to a sexual relationship.”
Sir Stephen writes that the criticism against Archbishop Cottrell “is that he should have turn into aware of the harmful presence of David Tudor within the Diocese of Chelmsford when or soon after he became Bishop of Chelmsford in 2010, and may have suspended him or taken steps to be sure that he didn’t pose a risk to women or young women; as an alternative, the respondent allowed him to proceed to minister as a vicar within the diocese, reappointed him as Area Dean in 2013 and again in 2018, appointed him as an Honorary Canon of Chelmsford Cathedral, and praised him publicly in January 2018, saying that ‘We’re very lucky to have David Tudor as a priest because he’s a Rolls-Royce priest and he stands out far above many others.’”
Sir Stephen responds to every a part of the criticism, making an allowance for Archbishop Cottrell’s responses.
In response to the criticism that Archbishop Cottrell must have suspended Mr Tudor, Sir Stephen writes: “The decision to allow David Tudor to return to ministry was appalling, viewed from the attitude of 2025, and even of 2010. It took no account of the position of his victims, including the complainant. How it might have been considered appropriate even on the time is tough to know, but that is just not a matter which presently arises for consideration. . .
“Given the situation which he inherited, the respondent had no power to remove or suspend David Tudor from ministry. Mr Tudor had been allowed to return to ministry, appointed as Rector of Canvey Island, and appointed as Area Dean well before the respondent’s appointment as Bishop of Chelmsford. His ministry was being monitored in accordance with a safeguarding agreement with which Mr Tudor was apparently complying. . .
“There is in my judgment no possibility whatever that the respondent’s failure to suspend or remove David Tudor may very well be thought to be misconduct. It was something which he had no power to do.”
Responding to the complainant’s argument that Archbishop Cottrell “must have taken steps to be sure that David Tudor didn’t pose a risk to women or young women”, Sir Stephen writes that Archbishop Cottrell did take steps to be sure that David Tudor didn’t pose a risk to women or young women. “Such arrangements were already in place in the shape of the safeguarding agreement, which was frequently monitored, and that process was continued. There is, furthermore, no evidence that David Tudor did not comply with the safeguarding agreement during his time as Rector of Canvey Island or that he misconducted himself towards any girl or young woman during that point. . .
“Again, due to this fact, there may be in my judgment no possibility that the respondent may very well be held to have committed misconduct on this regard.”
Sir Stephen writes that the allegation that Archbishop Cottrell re-appointed Mr Tudor as Area Dean in 2013, and, again, in 2018, “is, in my opinion, essentially the most serious of the allegations against him”. Archbishop Cottrell “now accepts that this was a mistake . . . and that these appointments shouldn’t have been made”, Sir Stephen writes. But, “it is obvious that the context wherein these appointments were made was that the chance presented by David Tudor was being frequently monitored, he was complying with the safeguarding agreement which was in place, and the safeguarding professionals answerable for monitoring that compliance expressed no concern about his re-appointment as Area Dean.”
The re-appointments as Area Dean were “mistaken and regrettable”, but didn’t amount to misconduct, Sir Stephen says.
In response to the criticism that Archbishop Cottrell had appointed Mr Tudor an Hon. Canon of Chelmsford Cathedral, Sir Stephen says that this was “not a recognition by the respondent of some outstanding service within the diocese and was not personal to him but was simply an application of the brand new diocesan policy that every one 44 Area Deans needs to be appointed as Honorary Canons. . .
“I don’t think it could reasonably be said that the acceptance of this latest policy could amount to misconduct by the respondent.”
In response to the criticism that Archbishop Cottrell had praised Mr Tudor publicly, in 2018, Sir Stephen writes: “The difficulty with this allegation is that there isn’t a reliable evidence of what, if anything, the respondent actually said, let alone of any context wherein he could have said anything to this effect. The complainant doesn’t claim to have been present when this was said and the respondent doesn’t recall making this statement. It appears to be based on a press report, which can or is probably not fully accurate. . .
“On such evidence as currently exists, I’m not satisfied that a disciplinary tribunal could reasonably conclude that an announcement to this effect was made which might justify a finding of misconduct.”
In response to an allegation made by the complainant that, “in 2012 David Tudor paid compensation of £10,000 to a girl for an assault committed prior to his ordination”, Sir Stephen says that, “allowing for that the respondent acted in accordance with advice received from safeguarding officers, I don’t consider that a disciplinary tribunal could reasonably find that the respondent’s failure to do more with this information may very well be thought to be misconduct.”
Sir Stephen concludes his decision by saying: “Although some mistakes were made within the handling of David Tudor’s case, there isn’t a case for the respondent to reply in respect of which a disciplinary tribunal needs to be requested to adjudicate”.
Archbishop Cottrell said in an announcement issued on Friday that Sir Stephen had “found that my decisions in relation to Mr Tudor were wholly focused on managing risk and were taken in accordance with legal and skilled safeguarding advice given to me on the time. When I used to be in a position to act, I removed Mr Tudor from lively ministry.
“I welcome scrutiny of my decisions. We all have much to learn from this case. There are some things I wish I had done in a different way. I’m sorry that the reappointment of Mr Tudor as Area Dean didn’t sufficiently consider the impact on those he had harmed. With today’s trauma-informed understanding — which rightly places greater emphasis on listening rigorously to survivors and recognising the lasting harm brought on by abuse — I’d take a special approach now.
“Safeguarding standards inside the Church of England have modified and improved significantly since Mr Tudor was allowed back to ministry within the Nineteen Eighties. I’m committed to making sure that this progress continues as we try towards a safer Church. I remain committed to meeting with victims and survivors to learn from their experiences and to strengthen safeguarding practice, and I’m grateful to those that have come forward to share their experiences.”
Debbie (not her real name), who says that, between the ages of 13 and 15, she was sexually abused by Mr Tudor, told the BBC on Friday: “When senior leaders fail to act on serious safeguarding warnings and permit known risks to proceed unchecked, they needs to be held responsible — not quietly absolved. This decision reinforces the sense that the Church of England protects its hierarchy way more rigorously than it protects vulnerable people.
“Turning a blind eye, failing to act decisively, and allowing someone who posed a risk to proceed in ministry is just not acceptable in any organisation — least of all of the Church.”
, but has “no case to...){kind=link}