Premier Christian News has learned that the Church of England has dismissed an appeal against the Archbishop of Canterbury’s handling of abuse allegations by a man who says he was abused by a priest in the Diocese of London.
The decision comes despite unresolved complaints filed by the man, known as Survivor N, under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM). Most Rev Sarah Mullally requested that the President of Tribunals, Sir Stephen Males, publish his decision that the complaint against her “ought not to have been brought”.
In a letter to Sir Stephen in February, Archbishop Sarah said that given her office and the level of press coverage surrounding the case, publication would be in the public interest.
She also wrote that as the claim had been assessed as “vexatious”, N may wish to “pause and consider whether he wishes to pursue further complaints”.
Appeal dismissed despite witness evidence
Sir Stephen made the decision to dismiss the case against Archbishop Sarah despite two dozen witness statements and a multi-signature letter sent to the archbishop when she was Bishop of London from locals in the city about the alleged behaviour of the priest at the centre of the case.
N claimed Sir Stephen had “ignored all this raw primary witness evidence and instead this testimony was heavily filtered through the Diocese of London safeguarding bureaucracy into a secondary internal memo by one of Sarah Mullally’s employees which decided there was no safeguarding risk. In any other legal system this practice of filtering witness evidence, would be ruled an Abuse of Process”.
The Church dismissed the appeal despite an outstanding CDM complaint against the priest, no early safeguarding risk assessment having been carried out, and no investigation into allegations of “behaviour unbecoming a clergyman in Holy Orders”.
Allegations dating back more than a decade
N’s allegations against the priest go back more than a decade.
In 2020, he filed a CDM complaint against Dame Sarah, who was then Bishop of London, over her handling of the case.
N said the response and lack of investigation into his claims by the bishop and the Diocese of London caused him to suffer such a severe mental health breakdown that he made two attempts on his life.
Lawyers described his treatment as the “worst example of post-abuse victimisation of a CDM complainant” they had ever seen.
Following a Premier Christian News investigation in December 2025, the Church reopened the investigation into N’s complaint and Dame Sarah acknowledged he had been “let down by the processes of the Church of England”.
The complaint against the archbishop was dismissed in January 2026 by Most Rev Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York.
Survivor says response has worsened mental health
Premier has now learned that the Church’s response to N’s appeal and subsequent CDM complaints in recent weeks has led to him experiencing suicidal thoughts again as he continues to pursue his case.
The outstanding complaints against the archbishop relate to allegations that private information was leaked, documents lost, and the then Bishop of London’s assertion that a complaint against the priest had been “fully dealt with”.
A preliminary scrutiny report by the Diocesan Registrar Stuart Jones into N’s CDM complaint against the priest said that because N was the subject of a restraint order preventing him from publishing allegations of wrongdoing against the priest, he was barred from making the allegations.
The order was due to expire on 7th March 2026.
Safeguarding process under scrutiny
Former child protection lawyer, Martin Sewell, has highly criticised the Church’s handling of the case.
“Survivor N was a respected member of his community; he brought tangible evidence of his good character to accompany his complaints from the outset,” he said. “N had no reason beyond public spirit and seeking justice to sustain his quest for due process from the Church.”
Sewell said that the case highlights the problem of safeguarding when delivered through the Church’s existing processes.
“The Survivor N story is simple in essence which only becomes complex when delivered into the world of Canon Law.
“He brought an initial simple allegation which ought to have been independently investigated and assessed, with his alleged abuser suspended as a ‘neutral act’. An independent Risk Assessment ought to have been commissioned; Survivor N is an acknowledged ‘vulnerable person’, yet he has been given no meaningful practical support whatsoever. He struggled to see the wood for the trees in this legal environment which is acknowledged to be ‘not fit for purpose’ and is still not reformed.
“His complaint was sliced and diced by Church lawyers who defined what they thought the issues were, they disregarded evidence he wanted evaluated, and in addition his complaint was ‘lost’ in their system for years.”
Sewell added: “Not only has there been no proper holding of power to account; Survivor N has been called ‘vexatious’. Within the Church of England survivor community that is regarded as a badge of honour. It means that that you stood up against a corrupt system and they don’t like it.”
Survivor advocate Dr Andrew Graystone told Premier: “Here we have in Survivor N, a good man who is gentle, he's vulnerable, he's unfailingly polite. He says he was abused by a parish priest, and for whatever reason, the weight of the Church of England has come down on him. They've deployed lawyers and bishops and safeguarding experts against him with almost no concern for the man himself. It looks like the Church of England behaving like a playground bully and they need to stand back and say, ‘Is this really the way that we want to treat a vulnerable person who brings a safeguarding complaint?’
“The passage that I come back to time and time again is the Good Samaritan. Now, which does the Church want to be - the priests who walk by on the other side of the road because what's happened doesn't fit in with their system and their processes and their timetables, or does it want to be the Samaritan that stops, takes care of the man and meets his needs?”
In a statement, the Archbishop of Canterbury Sarah Mullally said: “I welcome the independent scrutiny that the President of Tribunals has brought to this case.
“I also echo his disappointment over the original delay in handling this complaint, and the impact that this has had on N. I am committed to ensuring that our processes are robust, effective and supportive for all involved in complaints.
“I remain committed to listening to the voices of victims and survivors, and the work being done towards building an even safer church.”