The Most Rev Stephen Cottrell had let David Tudor remain in post despite knowing that he had been barred by the Church from being alone with children and had paid compensation to a sexual abuse victim.
The findings emerged following a BBC investigation in December 2024, which led to calls for the Archbishop of York to resign just days before taking temporary charge of the Church of England following the unprecedented resignation of Justin Welby as archbishop of Canterbury.
However, on Thursday it emerged that the Church has dismissed a complaint against the Archbishop of York over his handling of the Tudor case. The internal church complaint is known as a clergy discipline measure (CDM).
The decision is likely to increase tensions as both archbishops now battle to convince survivors of church-related abuse of their commitment to safeguarding.
It also comes after Dame Sarah Mullally was installed as Archbishop of Canterbury at a ceremony in St Paul’s Cathedral on Wednesday, which was interrupted by a heckler questioning her safeguarding record.
Her election has been plagued by accusations that she has also mishandled abuse complaints, and she also had a CDM against her dismissed by the Archbishop of York, her closest-ranking colleague.
This prompted accusations of “collusion” of both archbishops by the victim at the centre of the case, known as Survivor N.
However, just weeks after it emerged that the Archbishop of York had dismissed a complaint against Dame Sarah, it now appears that Dame Sarah had already dismissed a separate complaint against Archbishop Cottrell months earlier, before the CDM was appealed.
As a result of the Tudor case, which occurred while Archbishop Cottrell was in his previous role as bishop of Chelmsford, he was also made the subject of a CDM. On Thursday, that CDM was dismissed by the Sir Stephen Males, president of CDM tribunals.
‘Some mistakes were made’
He said: “I conclude that 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.”
Following the verdict, the Archbishop of York said in a statement that he would “take a different approach” if presented with a similar situation in the future, thanks to today’s “trauma-informed understanding”.
However, he added that his decisions were taken “in accordance with legal and professional safeguarding advice given to me at the time”.
Tudor was banned from ministry after he admitted historical sex abuse allegations relating to two girls – including one under the age of 16 – between 1982 and 1989. He was a priest in the Diocese of Southwark at the time.
Surrey Police said it investigated a report in 2019 of “non-recent indecent assault offences”, but the Crown Prosecution Service determined there was insufficient evidence to take the matter to court.
The BBC investigation also revealed that Archbishop Cottrell was briefed in his first week as bishop of Chelmsford, a role he held between 2010 and 2020, about serious safeguarding issues surrounding Tudor.
These included that he was convicted of indecently assaulting three underage girls and was jailed for six months in 1988 – however, the conviction was quashed on technical grounds.
Archbishop Cottrell would also have known that Tudor served a five-year ban from ministry and that he had been working under a safeguarding agreement in 2008 preventing him from being alone with children – yet months later became an area dean in charge of 12 parishes.
By 2012, Archbishop Cottrell was told that Tudor had paid a £10,000 settlement to a woman who said she was sexually abused by him from the age of 11.
In 2018, the Church of England issued an apology and a six-figure payout to another alleged victim.
The priest was suspended only in 2019 when a police investigation was launched after another woman spoke out alleging Tudor had abused her in the 1980s.
In a statement published today, the Archbishop of York said: “Mr Tudor shouldn’t have been allowed back into ministry in the 1980s.
However, in relation to the way in which I handled this difficult situation, the President of Tribunals, an independent Court of Appeal judge, concluded that there is no case to answer and no possibility of a tribunal finding I committed misconduct.”
He added: “We all have much to learn from this case. There are some things I wish I had done differently.
“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.”