GRACE ABOUNDING?

"God loves you. Unconditionally. No matter what you've done." (extract from sermon in 10,000 UK churches every Sunday but taken out of context)

"It is impossible for those ... who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. " (extract from Hebrews 6:4-6 NIVUK but taken out of context)

The inquiry into the case of David Tudor is due to report any day (having been due to report months ago, for such is the nature of inquiries.) That inquiry came after a decision of a Bishops Disciplinary Tribunal that resulted in his being banned from ministry for life.

In essence, Mr Tudor was suspended from ministry for 5 years in 1988 following two trials for indecent assault involving young people, with one acquittal and one successful appeal following conviction. He then had an active and, for many including his bishops, successful ministry, despite being made the subject of a safeguarding agreement in 2008 following another complaint, until new complaints relating to his behaviour in the 1970s and 80s resulted in his suspension in 2019 and the lifetime ban in 2024.

A longer summary is at the end of this piece. Conclusions are in bold red

THE DILEMMA(s)

Should Mr Tudor have been restored to ministry in 1993 or not? He had served time for a conviction that was overturned on appeal. He was thus considered innocent in the eyes of the law.

Should Mr Tudor have been appointed and reappointed as Area Dean and then Honorary Canon?

Should Mr Tudor have been subjected to a lifetime ban in 2024, for offences committed 40 years earlier and not repeated since, or not? (You probably wouldn't ask that after reading the reports but let's pretend that we haven't.)

There are provisions in existing procedures for managing those who wish to resume or even start participation in church life in such cases. One of these 'Safeguarding Agreements' was put in place for Mr Tudor in 2008, and they are a regular matter for Diocesan Safeguarding Teams, with 42 being in effect in Chelmsford diocese in 2024 (one for every 10 parishes). Such agreements protect both potential victims from repeat offending and the offender themselves from unjust accusations. For both victims and offender, does this arrangement go far enough or too far?

My own conversations with victims and survivors have led me to conclude that one of the most painful aspects of their experience is seeing their abuser lauded as a 'wonderful person'. It is an unfortunate fact that abusers are often either 'charismatic personalities' or 'expert groomers' depending on how you experience them, able to not only manipulate their victims but also to blind those who should be keeping the victims safe, not just from the actual abuse but from the ongoing harm caused when the abuser is treated better then the abused. Thus we get Jeffrey Epstein negotiating a soft deal with prosecutors that allowed him to continue his predatory behaviour even whilst nominally serving a prison sentence. And thus we get David Tudor. It is hard to imagine the pain for his victims to see him being dressed up in finery and lauded by bishops. I'd conclude that in this case, a Safeguarding Agreement allowing an admitted perpetrator to continue in public ministry was not appropriate.

A WIDER VIEW

Hindsight is always better than the, at best, blurred vision of a moment briefly illuminated by a glow worm. There are cases where the outcome is clear and obvious but, as the police and CPS have to deal with every day, most cases are anything but clear-cut. Are there any universal lessons that we can find helpful?

I thought I'd explore this with some anonymised (as to place, date, names, occupations, and story teller) cases that I've dealt with or know about, in both church safeguarding and other contexts. Whilst I hope no one can recognise a particular case, the issues faced are as described.

Biased Justice?

Vasily was a well-regarded factory manager. I met him during my work for the American owners. He was prosecuted for tax evasion. He had given a contract to a relative written to avoid tax on £5,000 of income annually. He and his relative both went to prison. At the same time, I was working at a factory in Vietnam owned by the same US company. All it did was weld a small piece of metal (an operation that would cost about 10p in Europe) onto a very expensive assembly that was shipped (at a cost of around £25 a unit) from Europe and then returned. Why? The factory was in a Freeport - no taxes. They 'bought' the part for £300 and 'sold' it back for £500, thus avoiding European tax on £25million of annual income. The directors received massive bonuses. "That's how business is, Graham."

A diocesan official was hassling younger ordinands to play tennis and then shower with him, suggesting that things might not go well for them if they refused. Eventually, one of the ordinands reported this to the bishop, who asked the Registrar to investigate. Much to everyone's surprise, (not!), the Registrar found that his personal friend had no case to answer. One of the victims lost their faith, ministry and marriage. The perpetrator was promoted.

We need to recognise this bias in our own practices. The gospel is relentless in its bias to the poor and the marginalised and I would argue that this should apply in Safeguarding - We must not put the needs of the respondent above the needs of victims. Given the complexity of most safeguarding cases, this inevitably means that some in positions of relative power will be treated unjustly, but which injustice would we rather defend at the judgement seat of Christ?

Unbelievable

John's nephew and his fiancée, not regular churchgoers but having a church wedding, returned from marriage preparation group. John knew the Lay Minister leading the group so was surprised when they told him they were "creeped out" by his behaviour towards his own wife. They recounted words and gestures that, in themselves, sounded innocent but when put together did seem odd. John gently enquired of a friend who was the Safeguarding Officer in that parish if the Lay Minister and his wife were OK. "They are now" was the enigmatic answer. Five years later, the Reader was jailed for sexual offences against his own children.

The people who should have known didn't believe their own eyes and ears because they knew the people involved. The  Safeguarding Office had actually been told what was going on but had been assured that it had stopped and was convinced that it was all a misunderstanding. Where those investigating concerns know the people involved, "that's impossible" becomes the first reaction. As with the ordinands case above, the message is clear: We must take investigation away from the parish and diocesan structures.

Our Object All Sublime

we shall achieve in time, to make the Punishment fit the Crime. (Gilbert & Sullivan).

A 5 year suspension? A Safeguarding Agreement? An "all-forgotten now" preferment? A lifetime ban? Which of these, or which variation of these is appropriate?

Jacquie was a worship leader in her independent church. 25, attractive and with an engaging personality, it was no surprise that the singing group had an unusual number of teenage boys in it. Seb was 15, appeared grown up for his age, and into sports. His parents had separated and he shuttled between them, dealing with their mutual antipathy.

Jacquie was arrested after Seb's mother found them in bed when she returned early from her evening shift. She spent 3 months in prison.

On her release, she returned to the church and was welcomed back by most after "public confession and repentance" and quickly resumed her ministry. However, a large group of parents withdrew their families from the church.

Five years later, a new Pastor discovered what had happened and demanded that a Safeguarding Agreement be put in place that would prevent Jacquie from having unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of 18. The Music Director was horrified and accused the Pastor of misogyny. When the Pastor insisted, the Music Director resigned, and started a claim for constructive dismissal, which was settled out of court.

Seb moved with his mother to another town and is no longer involved in a church. Jacquie is still a worship leader in the church.

The dilemma here is appropriate sanctions. Prison is intended to be :

• Justice for the victim, (however inadequate)

• To remove an offender from society (but usually only for a brief period)

• Reformation of character to prevent reoffending.

Given all that, what justification can there be for the church to impose additional sanctions? Even if the state's sanction is a (non-contact these days of course ) 'slap on the wrist' Conditional Discharge, that's the punishment the State decided; who are we to add more?

Within my Christian upbringing in an independent charismatic evangelical church, I now see that we were addicted to the "bad boy" redemption testimony. We never heard the "bad boy's" victims' testimony. In fact, in 50 years of attending church, I don't recall ever hearing a victim's story in a church service. So, first conclusion, We must find a way for victims' stories to be heard in church even if that's just playing Channel 4 documentaries.

My next observation is that the State is solely concerned with the crime charged. The church has to be concerned with the ongoing consequences of the crime. The historical approach has been to deal with the aftermath in this order of priority:

1. Protection of the church's reputation

2. Protecting the church's finances from excessive compensation claims.

3. Restoration of the perpetrator

There is a case for items 1 & 2 in charity law in that Trustees must act in the best interests of the charity but The Iwerne/Titus Trust saga shows that the Charities Commission do not put this above the interests of victims. An analogy can be seen in the commercial world - when companies focus on the needs of shareholders, the result is usually decline and failure. When the focus is on customers, staff and community, the result is usually growth and success.

The "Best Interests" of the church are not reputational and financial but the safety of those who use its services and those who work to provide the services. This is what all Trustees, at every level, should be focussed on.

How to decide sanctions and when is a longer topic and I've decided that this needs further exploration as it's not covered by either our proposal or those from the SSB

OUTLINE OF CASE

David Tudor was a priest in Southwark diocese. In January 1988, he was acquitted of one charge of indecent assault and in February 1988 convicted of indecent assault and served 6 months in prison. That conviction was quashed on appeal though it is noted that the facts were not the reason for the appeal verdict. Mr Tudor was then barred from ministry for 5 years. He subsequently resumed ministry, eventually settling in Chelmsford dioceses, where he became a "well-loved and well-respected" parish priest. In 2005 a new complaint was made, relating to Mr Tudor's conduct in the 1970s. No criminal investigation followed but the church conducted a risk assessment and he continued in ministry with a safeguarding agreement in place from 2008. In 2008, he was appointed an Area Dean.

By 2012, the new bishop, now the Archbishop of York, knew of a financial settlement made by Mr Tudor to a complainant. In 2013 and 2018, the bishop renewed the Area Dean Appointment. In 2015, the bishop appointed Mr Tudor as an honorary Canon - usually regarded as a reward for good service. In 2018, a new complaint, relating to the 1980s, was made to police, with no action taken. Also in 2018, the Church of England issued an apology and a six-figure pay-out to another alleged victim (not clear if these cases were connected or not). Mr Tudor was then suspended from ministry in 2019. In 2021, the complainant started action under the Clergy Disciplinary Measure (CDM) and another complainant came forward in 2022.

In October 2024, Mr Tudor was barred from ministry for life.

Return to discussion