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 answer in respect of which a disciplinary tribunal should 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) complaint 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, however: “Even on David Tudor’s own account, what occurred constituted serious sexual abuse and a gross abuse of power on his part. . . It is apparent that David Tudor had a sexual interest in teenage girls and was prepared to exploit his position to groom them, in gross breach of trust, with a view to a sexual relationship.”
Sir Stephen writes that the complaint against Archbishop Cottrell “is that he must have become aware of the dangerous presence of David Tudor in the Diocese of Chelmsford when or soon after he became Bishop of Chelmsford in 2010, and should have suspended him or taken steps to ensure that he did not pose a risk to girls or young women; instead, the respondent allowed him to continue to minister as a vicar in 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 each part of the complaint, taking into account Archbishop Cottrell’s responses.
In response to the complaint that Archbishop Cottrell should have suspended Mr Tudor, Sir Stephen writes: “The decision to permit David Tudor to return to ministry was appalling, viewed from the perspective of 2025, or even of 2010. It took no account of the position of his victims, including the complainant. How it could have been considered appropriate even at the time is hard to understand, but that is 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 could be regarded as misconduct. It was something which he had no power to do.”
Responding to the complainant’s argument that Archbishop Cottrell “should have taken steps to ensure that David Tudor did not pose a risk to girls or young women”, Sir Stephen writes that Archbishop Cottrell did take steps to ensure that David Tudor did not pose a risk to girls or young women. “Such arrangements were already in place in the form of the safeguarding agreement, which was regularly monitored, and that process was continued. There is, moreover, no evidence that David Tudor failed to 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 time. . .
“Again, therefore, there is in my judgment no possibility that the respondent could be held to have committed misconduct in 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 view, the most serious of the allegations against him”. Archbishop Cottrell “now accepts that this was a mistake . . . and that these appointments should not have been made”, Sir Stephen writes. But, “it is clear that the context in which these appointments were made was that the risk presented by David Tudor was being regularly monitored, he was complying with the safeguarding agreement which was in place, and the safeguarding professionals responsible 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 did not amount to misconduct, Sir Stephen says.
In response to the complaint 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 in the diocese and was not personal to him but was simply an application of the new diocesan policy that all 44 Area Deans should be appointed as Honorary Canons. . .
“I do not think it could reasonably be said that the acceptance of this new policy could amount to misconduct by the respondent.”
In response to the complaint that Archbishop Cottrell had praised Mr Tudor publicly, in 2018, Sir Stephen writes: “The difficulty with this allegation is that there is no reliable evidence of what, if anything, the respondent actually said, let alone of any context in which he may have said anything to this effect. The complainant does not claim to have been present when this was said and the respondent does not recall making this statement. It appears to be based on a press report, which may or may not be fully accurate. . .
“On such evidence as currently exists, I am not satisfied that a disciplinary tribunal could reasonably conclude that a statement to this effect was made which would 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 woman for an assault committed prior to his ordination”, Sir Stephen says that, “bearing in mind that the respondent acted in accordance with advice received from safeguarding officers, I do not consider that a disciplinary tribunal could reasonably find that the respondent’s failure to do more with this information could be regarded as misconduct.”
Sir Stephen concludes his decision by saying: “Although some mistakes were made in the handling of David Tudor’s case, there is no case for the respondent to answer in respect of which a disciplinary tribunal should be requested to adjudicate”.
Archbishop Cottrell said in a statement 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 professional safeguarding advice given to me at the time. When I was able to act, I removed Mr Tudor from active 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 differently. I am sorry that the reappointment of Mr Tudor as Area Dean did not sufficiently consider the impact on those he had harmed. With today’s trauma-informed understanding — which rightly places greater emphasis on listening carefully to survivors and recognising the lasting harm caused by abuse — I would take a different approach now.
“Safeguarding standards within the Church of England have changed and improved significantly since Mr Tudor was allowed back to ministry in the 1980s. I am committed to ensuring that this progress continues as we strive 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 am grateful to those who 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 allow known risks to continue unchecked, they should be held responsible — not quietly absolved. This decision reinforces the sense that the Church of England protects its hierarchy far more rigorously than it protects vulnerable people.
“Turning a blind eye, failing to act decisively, and allowing someone who posed a risk to continue in ministry is not acceptable in any organisation — least of all the Church.”
