.jpg)
On 16 June, it ruled that the Revd Sam Cross (also known as Sam McNally-Cross) should be removed as Vicar of St Thomas, St Andrew and St Philip, Kensal Town, in the diocese of London and prohibited from ministry for a period of five years.
The Tribunal expressed concern that Mr Cross had “failed to show any insight or remorse about entering into a sexual relationship with the complainant whilst he was still married” and cited as a “major aggravating feature” that “he did not admit the allegations made against him and, therefore, put the complainant through the unnecessary ordeal of giving evidence to her distress and psychological impact.”
The Tribunal found that he had “consistently lied in these proceedings both in his witness statements and oral evidence”, and that this was “consistent with how he deliberately chose to deceive his church about his relationship with the complainant, keeping it private from the churchwardens, PCC and other members of the clergy”.
The complainant lived as a lodger at the vicarage from August 2021. Initially she was a university student but then became employed by the diocese as an apprentice children’s worker in the parish in September 2022. Mr Cross separated from his former wife in October 2021 and they were divorced on 20 January 2023.
The Tribunal accepted two of three charges: that, being a married man, he had engaged in a sexual relationship with Person A from about October 2021 until January 2023; and that, after January 2023, he “continued to engage in an inappropriate relationship with the said complainant and by his actions failed to maintain any or any proper professional or pastoral boundary”. It rejected the claim that he had behaved “in a manner which was coercive and controlling”.
The evidence from the parties was “directly contradictory”, the Tribunal found. The complainant described the relationship as “sexual from close to the beginning” while the respondent described it as “chaste . . . with no more than kissing, holding hands and cuddling whilst they were in private”.
The Tribunal concluded that “the contemporaneous records support the complainant’s evidence that there was a sexual relationship between the complainant and the respondent.” The messages were “flirtatious” early on, the Tribunal states, and the two were dating, notwithstanding that Mr Cross’s wife was continuing to live in the vicarage.
It accepted that a “serious degree” of harm had been caused by Mr Cross who was, “for a considerable period”, the complainant’s priest, partner, landlord, and line manager.
It took into account that he was of previous good character, and that the relationship “was probably not destructive of the respondent’s marriage and did not involve anybody else’s marriage”. Character responses were “supportive of the respondent being a capable and effective parish priest in a difficult area”.