But Archbishop Cottrell said that he would not consider statements from four other individuals.
Survivor N’s complaint relates to Bishop Mullally’s handling of allegations that he made against a priest in the diocese.
In early December, it emerged that the complaint, which was filed in 2020, had not been taken further owing to the diocesan registrar’s mistakenly thinking that Survivor N did not wish to proceed.
Archbishop Cottrell is now considering whether to progress the complaint, after requesting, and receiving, a formal response from Bishop Mullally, who is Archbishop of Canterbury-elect.
He was also asked by Survivor N to consider an updated witness statement and witness statements written by four other individuals. In a judgment, which has been seen by the Church Times, Archbishop Cottrell opted to accept the updated statement from Survivor N, citing a mechanism in the CDM rules which allows him to seek “points of clarification” after a complaint has been received.
But the statements from the four other individuals did not relate to specifics of the complaint, Archbishop Cottrell wrote, and, as such, were not admissible as “points of clarification”.
Bishop Mullally had until 29 December to make any further clarifications in light of the new statement.
The judgment quotes from Survivor N’s updated statement: “I have more to say and will be saying it in a further Statement of Witness in due course.”
In his judgment, however, Archbishop Cottrell wrote that he “must make clear” to Survivor N that “no further evidence may now be submitted” before he made a decision, which he is obliged to do by 7 January.
If Archbishop Cottrell chooses not to take further action or dismisses the case, the complainant can request that this decision be reviewed by the independent President of Tribunals.
A request by Survivor N for the case to be delegated immediately to the President of Tribunals could not be acceded to, Archbishop Cottrell explained, under the legal structure of the CDM.
Of the witness statements from third parties which have been excluded from consideration, Survivor N writes that they “vitally and in the public interest expose the culture in the Diocese of London under Sarah Mullally of her enthusiastic victimisation of complainants as a tool of reputation management”.