Updated Saturday 7 February
The Church Times recently reported: President of Tribunals finds no case to answer for Archbishop of York in David Tudor case.
The full decision by Sir Stephen Males is here. (Also his supplementary decision on publication.)
In response the Archbishop of York issued this statement.
This is not the only outstanding process relating to the David Tudor case. As Gavin Drake explains:
The Church of England is currently engaged in two distinct processes arising from the David Tudor case. One is a disciplinary complaint brought under the Clergy Discipline Measure against the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, which was halted at a preliminary stage by the President of Tribunals under section 17 of the Measure. The other is a national, independent Safeguarding Practice Review, still ongoing, examining the Church’s handling of the case over many years and intended to identify learning to improve safeguarding practice and outcomes for victims and survivors.
The Safeguarding Practice Review (SPR) was commissioned by the National Safeguarding Team and the dioceses of Chelmsford and Southwark to examine the Church’s handling of the David Tudor case over many years. Its terms of reference make clear that Stephen Cottrell’s actions will be part of the review. The review began work in March 2025 and was originally expected to conclude within six months. A final call for evidence was issued in September 2025, after that initial timetable had already elapsed, and in November the Church announced a further delay, citing new police information.
The review is now expected to report in early 2026. Its stated purpose is not to re-litigate disciplinary findings, but to identify learning, assess safeguarding practice and decision-making, and improve outcomes for victims and survivors. At the time the Archbishop issued his statement, this review was ongoing and unfinished.
Gavin has further commentary on this.
He also has criticism of the president’s decision and of the archbishop’s statement over here and also here.
Update
Ian Paul has also written about this: Do we have safeguarding leadership in the Church of England? This article, like Gavin’s, is also worth reading in full.
Agtain the church seeks to protect its own by its outdated policies and practices. In any secular employment involving children, he would be banned FULL STOP (apologies for the Trumpian capitals)! The management decision to sack him should be black and white and speedy as when I sacked a teacher who had abused (in terms of activity, very minor) a 12 year old girl. Not only was he sacked but was tried and found guilty, heavily fined and lost his pension – he had been teaching for over 30 years. What is it about the church that it makes such… Read more »
Who else remembers the statement of the ABY at Synod in 2023 after the sacking of the ISB speaking of a safeguarding crisis in the Church of England , a watershed moment and the Church could not get it wrong again? It was a powerful speech . The Church of England still has a Safeguarding crisis of which the ABY remains no small part.
I have to agree with you on the ABY observation.
How can you lose a pension to which you have contributed for thirty years?
I believe the Church of England pension scheme is non-contributory.
A non-contributory pension can be regarded as deferred payment for work done. I don’t think there are any circumstances that it can be withheld.
You’re right, Matthew. I’d forgotten that. I believe a lien can be placed on the pension ‘pot’ of a non-contributory pension in order to recover thefts from the employer by the employee – but that’s not the issue in question here.
You can’t now except partially for very serious fraud or treason. Certainly not for sexual crimes or violence. I suspect Dr Wallace is not giving the full picture (likely for good reasons).
“No Case to Answer” – of course not, nobody can have expected any other verdict.
The idea that he was only possible priest capable of being area dean & was thus re-appointed despite everything known against him is beyond outrageous. It is also a massive insult to all those clergy who were passed over for that post in favour of him.
What did you think of the extensive discussion on this issue by Sir Stephen Males? He seems to think it was a mistake, but not serious enough to be guilty of a disciplinary conduct.
It is not a good look- Saving the skin of those in high places…..
Did anyone else study Samson Agonistes for A level?… Delilah visits the blinded Samson and tries to explain away her betrayal of him as frailty….
Samson is having none of it…
‘If weakness may excuse
What murderer, what traitor, paracide
Incestuous, sacrilegious but may plead it?
All wickedness is weakness:that plea therefore
With God or man will gain thee no remission ‘
The ‘honest mistake ‘ which any aspiring diocesan could have made also reduces Tudor’s victims to mere collateral- yet. again
To me Males seemed to cloud the issue & massively minimise the seriousness of those errors of judgement. The CofE needs to make a defenestation example of a senior prelate “pour encourager les autres” in safeguarding matters. Until that is done bishops will continue to lose their memory & get away with it.
Don’t you think that losing two Archbishops might be seen to be …..
To loose one Archbishop may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.
Lords Carey and Sentamu are to varying degrees in the wilderness too.
I’ve accompanied a fair few clergy through CDM proceedings; the threshold for what constituted misconduct was set rather lower for them than for the Archbishop of York. It’s not good for either recruitment or retention for ordinands and clergy to realise that the rules are only for the little people. It’s out of step with our founder’s teaching as well.
Certainly (and sadly) the departure of former Archbishop Welby hasn’t sorted things , or has even encouraged the Wrong Sort of autres
Another cleric relied on her poor memory – The Revd Paula Vennells.
In response to the “update” adding Ian Paul’s article to the thread: Both Gavin Drake and Ian Paul make great play of the phrase “a case to answer” and work on the basis that if an allegation is made that requires answering it should go to a tribunal for determination. That is not and never has been the case. When an allegation is made, then unless it is dismissed a respondent is asked to provide their answer. When that is supplied, then unless one of the other section 12(1) outcomes results, the next step is to direct an investigation. That… Read more »
Peter, thank you (as ever) for bringing procedural clarity where a discussion is clouded by an inaccurate understanding of the proper procedure. The idea that cases step straight from ‘case to answer’ to tribunal (which they don’t) is deeply misleading, and the stages between the two continue to be appropriate whatever the wider merits of the current CDM against whatever finally comes to pass with a new CCM.
I have very little faith in Sir Stephen Males. He may be “a very experienced judge” but he still issued a decision notice in a different case where he made several claims that “things were not clear” when they were uncontested and set out in the evidence. For example, he said that “it is not clear” whether a victim of church-related abuse had seen an earlier decision notice by the deputy president of tribunals. Despite the fact that in the evidence before him was a statement from the victim that set out how she felt when she was given the… Read more »