“No case to answer” sounds final — but this decision rewrote the rules, excused serious safeguarding failures, and ignored conflicts of interest. It exposes a system not fit for purpose, and a leadership crisis that cannot be shrugged off.
This testimony raises uncomfortable questions about power, truth and who really controls safeguarding responses.
When given a clear opportunity to apologise, show lessons had been learned and provide moral leadership, Stephen Cottrell and Sarah Mullally chose to walk by on the other side. Read how safeguarding rhetoric collapses when Church leaders are confronted with real accountability.
The Archbishops’ Council publishes a safeguarding report “as if nothing has happened”.
After regulatory rebukes, reopened survivor complaints, and Parliament rejecting Church legislation — this is not ignorance. It is contempt.
⬇️ Read why
Parliament approves Church of England legislation with the force of an Act — but cannot amend it, correct it, or always even publish its concerns.
That is not scrutiny.
It’s a constitutional defect.
Why the 1919 Act matters ⬇️
Parliament explicitly asked for draft rules.
They were not provided.
That alone should have stopped the Clergy Conduct Measure in its tracks.
Why this matters — and why it’s not a technicality.
Secrecy in the Church of England isn’t accidental. It’s procedural.
I’ve launched a series of background briefings to document how power is structured, how scrutiny is limited, and why survivors keep hitting the same walls.
Read why ⬇️
Two dioceses. Two safeguarding failures. The regulator has spoken — but the Church still deflects, disagrees, and delays. It’s time for independent, statutory safeguarding.
The regulator has spoken: safeguarding in the Church of England is failing, and trustees are now on notice. Real reform needs real accountability at the top.
Clergy Discipline Tribunals remain exempt from FOIA—it’s time to demand transparency in church justice.