“On 12 March 2020 the complainant made a complaint against the respondent pursuant to section 8 of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (‘the Measure’). That complaint was addressed to the then Archbishop of Canterbury, (The Most Rev Justin Welby) [4]. Most unfortunately, there were a number of procedural errors in the handling of the complaint, which meant that it never proceeded to preliminary scrutiny and was not dealt with. It appears that this failing was only appreciated in 2025, at which time the complaint was referred to the Archbishop of York (“the Archbishop”), the See of Canterbury being vacant [5].

“Nevertheless, the Archbishop of York was satisfied that these procedural errors did not invalidate any step now to be taken under the Measure and considered that he was able to deal with the complaint fairly and expeditiously”. The President agreed with this assessment [7].

The Archbishop divided the complaint into five distinct allegations, which he referred to as Complaints 1 to 5. In each case the Archbishop determined that there was no misconduct by the respondent and directed that no further action be taken on the complaint [10]. Section 13(3) of the Measure provides that if the President of Tribunals considers that the Archbishop’s determination was “plainly wrong”, he may either direct the Archbishop to pursue such of the courses specified in section 12(1)(b) to (e) of the Measure as he considers appropriate or remit the complaint to the Archbishop and direct him to reconsider he determination that there is to be no further action [13].

The complainant’s referral was limited to the Complaints numbered 1 and 4. There was no challenge to the Archbishop’s determination that no further action was required on Complaints 2, 3 and 5 [14]. Allegations made by the complainant against REDACTED resulted in the making of a restraining order against the complainant pursuant to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The order was made by the Thames Magistrates Court on 8th March 2016 and was varied on 9th January 2017 [18].

Complaint 1 is considered in [19] to [28], and Complaint 4 in [29] to [40].

19. Complaint 1 is in the following terms: ‘… the bishops of London, over decades both prior to, and since the installation of Bishop Sarah Mullally in that office have consistently violated Canon C 30 by actively abetting the priest, REDACTED in his harming vulnerable adults, causing vulnerable adults to be harmed and inciting other persons to harm vulnerable adults, and perpetuating conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders, including sexual, psychological and financial abuse, threats, intimidation, harassment, and bullying of multiple individuals, in ways which have injured an entire community.’

[…]

28. It is impossible to say that the determination of the Archbishop on Complaint 1 was “plainly wrong”. On the contrary, in my judgment his careful reasoning is impeccable.

29. Complaint 4 is in the following terms: ‘Colleagues who wrote using my name to Bishop Mullally in strictest confidence as preliminary to my CDM complaint, maintaining the same private circulation list throughout various emails, discovered that she had violated that abuse complainant confidentiality and forwarded some of this private correspondence to REDACTED.’

30. This refers to an email dated 1st March 2019, sent to the respondent in the name of the complainant from a body called ‘Scriptural Reasoning’ and copied to 19 other people, some of whom were Church of England officeholders, while others included journalists, one of whom was the BBC’s religious correspondent. The email was not marked ‘confidential’.

31. In fact, although this email was sent in the complainant’s name, purporting to be signed by him, and sent from the same email address from which he had previously sent emails to the respondent, it appears that it was not sent by him but by REDACTED, a woman who was administering the email address, and that the complaint referred to was not the complainant’s, but REDACTED.

[…]

35. The Archbishop accepted that the email had not been sent by the complainant and that it referred, not to his own complaint (which had been submitted but which had not reached the respondent due to postal delays), but to a separate complaint submitted by REDACTED. However, he rejected the submission that the email had been sent in confidence.

Three of the recipients had @bbc.co.uk email addresses and one of these was Martin Bashir, then the BBC’s religious affairs correspondent; another was a well-known lawyer who commented publicly on church-related matters; and one was another incumbent in the Diocese of London.

Contrary to the complainant’s case, therefore, there was no expectation of confidentiality, and the email appeared to be intended to cause as much publicity as possible. It appeared to be an attempt to cause embarrassment to REDACTED by publicising the fact of a complaint having been made against him.

[…]

40. In these circumstances the Archbishop’s decision to dismiss Complaint 4 cannot be regarded as plainly wrong. On the contrary, I consider that his decision was obviously correct.

The President concluded:

“41. …that the Archbishop of York’s determination that no further action should be taken on this complaint was not plainly wrong.

42. However, I think it appropriate to go further. I have no doubt, having considered the matter carefully, that he was right to dismiss the complaint. This was a vexatious complaint which ought not to have been brought”.

March ’26 Decision on publication

The President reiterated his view that the complaint was a vexatious complaint which ought not to have been brought, and that the Archbishop of York had been right to dismiss it [3]. On 17 February 2026 he received a request from the Archbishop of Canterbury that his Decision should be published, with suitable redactions relating to the identity of a  priest in the Diocese of London [4]. Dame Sarah gave three reasons for this request, viz:

(1) In view of her office as Archbishop of Canterbury, it would be in the public interest  for the Decision to be published.

(2) The complaint had already been well-publicised, largely due to the complainant  himself revealing details to the press, which had led to some inaccurate reporting.

(3) The Archbishop was aware that further complaints had been made against her  and others; my determination that the complaint was vexatious would give the complainant an opportunity to pause and consider whether he wishes to pursue such complaints.

The President invited representations from the complainant on this request, who in an email dated 2 March 2026, stated is that there was a single course of conduct by the respondent spanning the entire period from 2018 to 2026 which was the subject, not only of the complaint which had now been dismissed, but further complaints made on 6 February 2026.

He made clear that he did not agree with the President’s finding that the 2020 complaint was vexatious and said that he had been under pressure from journalists to give his consent for them to publish facts which he said had come to light pertaining to the respondent’s conduct. He said that he had so far resisted giving his consent to such publication and that it would be prejudicial to him for the President’s Decision to be published until his latest complaints had been resolved. The complainant’s position, therefore, was that th Decision should not be published at this stage [5].

In his Decision, the President expressed no doubt that it was in the public interest that it should be published. The fact of a complaint against the Archbishop of Canterbury had been widely publicised, including (as it appeared) by the complainant himself. It was right that the public should know that this complaint had now been considered in accordance with the applicable statutory procedures and has been found by an independent judge to be vexatious. Those who were interested would be able to decide for themselves whether they agreed with his Decision, but would at least be able to do so with accurate information about the nature of the complaint and the reasons for its dismissal [6].

He did not accept that publication would prejudice the complainant in any way, and accordingly, directed that hid Decision dated 12 February 2026 together with this further Decision on Publication should be published on the Church of England website [7].

Comment

The term “vexatious” has specific meaning in law according to the context of its use. In most areas of UK administrative law, whilst the complaint may be vexatious, a person only becomes a vexatious litigant when the High Court issues a civil proceedings order through the  Attorney General under S42 Senior Courts Act 1981. This restricts them from initiating or continuing civil proceedings in the courts without permission. Their name will also be published in the London Gazette and included on the list of vexatious litigants (Note: the list was last updated 2 May 2025).

With regard to the Decisions discussed above, whilst the President analysed the complaints and made reference to their vexatious nature  (one in February ’26 and four in March ’26) and stressed that it ought not to have been brought, he did not refer to “N”, as a vexatious complainant.