Church of England press release
Safeguarding Practice Review commissioned: David Tudor
01/04/2025
A Safeguarding Practice Review (SPR) has been jointly commissioned by the National Safeguarding Team and the dioceses of Chelmsford and Southwark to look at the lessons to be learnt from the Church’s handling of the David Tudor case…
The full text of the press release continues below the fold…
The terms of reference for the SPR are available here.
An SPR is what was formerly known as a lessons learnt review.
…David Tudor, a former Rector in Chelmsford Diocese, was prohibited from ministry for life in October 2024 following two complaints under the Clergy Discipline Measure. The penalty imposed followed a full admission of guilt to disclosures of serious sexual abuse from the two complainants, relating to the time when he was a priest in the Diocese of Southwark.
As the House of Bishops guidance (Code) states, a SPR is a process to improve safeguarding practice through learning, particularly outcomes for victims and survivors. It is not a re-investigation of the case but if the review highlights serious safeguarding concerns relating to the practice of others then appropriate action will be taken under the Responding guidance.
The SPR will examine the allegations against David Tudor, how the Church handled them over a long period of time and how it responded to victims and survivors.
The reviewer will then apply the learning from this to improve practice and safeguarding arrangements in the Church of England, these findings will be contained in the final report which will be published.
As per guidance an independent reviewer with relevant expertise and experience has been appointed. Sue Williams, a former Commander in the Met Police has now started work, and the Terms of Reference have been agreed with the advisory group overseeing the process, made up of safeguarding professionals, an independent panel member and includes input from victims and survivors. Sue Williams will be assisted by former senior police officer Richard Norfolk.
SPRs, formerly known as lessons learnt reviews, were set up under the new Safeguarding Code of Practice approved at General Synod in July 2023.
Support continues to be offered to those who have come forward.
Notes
Talk about bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted; another bucket of whitewash or two might be needed. It is clear the institutional C of E has no intention of mending its ways. Those in the know and their numbers are well into double figures should be arrested, and charged with complicity to cover up serious criminal behaviour. Their public iterations demonstrate their total unsuitability for the very senior posts they held. “,I couldn’t do anything about it” ??? Well if you couldn’t who could? I write as a former law enforcement officer and the fingerprints of the… Read more »
What evidence is there that they did anything to cover up criminal behaviour? Tudor’s misdeeds were already well known.
I expect to read plenty of frothing posts about this, like the one from Stephen Goode above. What no one bothers to clarify is why, if it was so straightforward to get rid of Tudor, that didn’t happen much sooner. It was 100% in everybody’s interests to do so and 100% against their interests not to. Goode’s theory appears to be that there was a deliberate cover up for motives unspecified that he doesn’t trouble to explain. I notice he’s wise enough not to name any names though, hopefully because he understands that accusing people of covering up serious criminal… Read more »
Libel law is itself far from straightforward, so blanket statements about a very nuanced area of legal practice are themselves not that helpful, as any legal practitioner in the field would tell you. I always err on the side of caution when a situation is under investigation, though, even though an internal investigation does not carry the weight of statutory processes. So I will refrain from commenting on this particular case in any more specific a way than I have already on this thread. In general terms, however, there are ways with some creative thinking of ‘getting rid’ of a… Read more »
I’m sure you’re wise, Realist, to err on the side of caution. My eyes have regularly bulged at what some people seem prepared to say online about named individuals, apparently secure in the expectation that there will be no come back. Imagine the scurry to delete posts and blogs if even one such case were brought. Some people do have rudimentary instincts of self preservation, I’ve noticed. For instance, if they post something and I say, ‘who are you referring to?’ they’ll fall silent. The media know very well where the line is and won’t publish anything that could be… Read more »
Yes indeed, on that we both agree. The duping of people on all sides by media coverage is so often a shameful thing. It’s so difficult these days to actually get to the facts, even of the presented arguments in disputed allegations. I’ve always worked to the principles of never writing anything I wouldn’t be prepared or able to defend should it land on my Bishop’s desk, even if they didn’t like it; and to write only things that to the best of my knowledge are true and I sincerely believe them to be so, or are personal opinions rather… Read more »
“accusing people of covering up serious criminal behaviour is potentially libellous” It rarely is. Defamation Act 2013, S.3(1) through (4). Summarising loosely, your opinion, with a basis that an honest person could infer from any fact that existed at the time of publication, is not libellous. The question of why Tudor remained in employment is interesting. It’s mostly about an excessively risk averse attitude to litigation which leaves you exposed to wider reputational risk. The problem for some institutions is that they are excessively frightened of legal action. Some large employers tie themselves in knots because of fear of employment… Read more »
I don’t know if the point has already been considered, if so, I have missed it. At the relevant time was David Tudor an employee or office holder? Would the Employment Tribunal have any jurisdiction if he were an office holder?
That’s a good point. However, irrespective of employment status, the diocese could simply have banned Tudor from the premises, coûte que coûte. Yes, the nature of his employment might alter the potential legal avenues he had available to him, but it seems unlikely being an office holder would give him more rights: employment law (relating to employees, rather than other relationships) has arisen in the UK to _strengthen_ the rights of employees and make it easier for them to enforce those rights.
Let’s assume he was an office holder. He’s banned from the premises. What does he do next?
Jane Charman . Reading between the lines of the Tudor report I disagree both regarding defamation and naming names. Honest belief based on public record allows the naming of people. So here goes. AB George Carey. Forgave Tudor and allowed him to return to ministry. Any victim who was preyed/prayed on by Tudor after this happened has a direct damages claim against the Diocese. Knowingly allowing Tudor to remain in post after he was banned from access to young people children was and is gross negligence. Those who had any duty of care at that time were and are directly… Read more »
Well, how much you can know for certain by ‘reading between the lines’.
Guess at this stage we will find out either by further revelations, others coming forward or a fully independent enquiry. The conclusions above are based on a reading of the current reports and media and it looks like both AB York and AB Carey face some really important questions about their ethical understanding. From a secular view they both should resign from both their ministry roles and ++ York from the HoL.
Archbishop Carey gave up his PTO some months ago. He currently has no ministry roles.
You don’t have to “know for certain”. “richie” is informally outlining the requirement for a Defamation Act 2013 S.3 defence (“honest opinion”). That does not require that the statements be true (that would be S.2 “truth”). Even “truth” only requires “that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true”, at a civil “balance of probabilities”. “Honest opinion” simply requires that it be your honest opinion capable of being formed from at least one fact. And in the case of child abuse in the established church, S.4 “public interest” is waiting in the wings, which only requires that… Read more »
While in no respect seeking to downplay the seriousness of the abuse committed by David Tudor in the 1970s and 1980s, when seeking to criticise the Archbishop of York (when Bishop of Chelmsford from 2010) it is relevant to note the chronology set out in the judgment of the recent disciplinary tribunal and its recording (at paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5) that: “It would be wrong not to acknowledge that a large number of people speak to the nature of the Respondent’s ministry, relating to his success in invigorating the church, leading its growth and presenting a flourishing message,” and “Equally… Read more »
I will be extremely surprised if this does anything other than provide a convenient justification or set of plausible deniability excuses for ++York.
SPRs, formerly known as lessons learnt reviews, were set up under the new Safeguarding Code of Practice approved at General Synod in July 2023. So, one lesson learned from Lessons Learnt reviews; don’t call them Lessons Learnt Reviews; a reflection on the truism that ‘if we learn anythng from history, it’s that we learn nothing from history’. Nor from the present as it becomes history? I note also the keenness to place responsibility for the change, and whatever may be thought to have resulted from the enactment of the change, upon General Synod. GS- a body of folk sort-of-akin to the… Read more »
Is this carefully crafted to exclude his appointment and reappointment as Area Dean, since it only mentions Canvey Island? If so, it looks like a way of avoiding accountability for the one sure thing that the diocesan bishop did have control of? The the terms of reference may have been written in such a way that accountability is obfuscated.
I cannot help thinking that as far as this review is concerned we are about recent history repeating itself in another form, and as the Makin review was a catalyst that led to the resignation of the former Archbishop of Canterbury this one could be the one that will make the position of the Archbishop of York completely untenable and lead to his resignation and I have no doubts whatever one thinks of the rights or wrongs of this given the modern reality of our Media Cathy Newman and Channel 4 will make quite sure this is the final outcome… Read more »
Another review to be dragged out and ignored.
I look forward to this review – because it “could” be meaningful. Not for D.Tudor (and his victims/survivors) in particular – but for any future or current Rev D Threedor in our dioceses? The claim from Southwark and ABY is that; because his previous accusations had failed to lead to a conviction (for various legal reasons) that until the most recent accusation they could not remove him so were doing the best they could to make use of him in a controlled way (i.e. no contact with schools). The counter claim has been “obviously you should have fired him –… Read more »