Archive for Uncategorized

IICSA Anglican 2nd-12th July evidence notes

Anglican wider church investigation hearing1st to 12 July 2019

 

Introduction from Prof Alexis J.

 

Fiona scolding QC, Counsel to the enquiry introduced the parties: –

 

David Greenwood and William Chapman on behalf of core participants.

 

Richard scorer and Ian O’Donnell on behalf of core participants

 

Nigel Giffin QC on behalf of the archbishops Council.

 

Mark Powell on behalf of the Church in Wales.

 

Rory Phillips on behalf of E I G.

 

James Berry on behalf of the National police chiefs counsel.

 

Emily Wilson on behalf of the Department for education.

 

Fiona scolding poses to questions to be addressed in this hearing as being the appropriateness of changes made by the church since the IICSA process started, the appropriateness of action taken by insurers, whether the Church in Wales has handled cases well, whether non-recent disclosures have been handled appropriately, whether the system of central scrutiny is adequate and whether the church culture is capable of dealing with these issues.

 

We will look at casework and hear of all responses, failures in record-keeping, clergy with a sense of entitlement, we will hear of deference and an unwillingness to criticise.

 

In recent years 390 clerics or those in positions of trust have been accused of child sexual abuse. Some has been for downloading pornography and some has been for contact offences. There have been 231 letters of claim received from claimants about abuse by 122 clerics, 30 of those being deceased, 86 volunteers, 215 of the 390 were male. 199 were made 20 years plus after the abuse occurred only one case went to a civil trial.

 

In 2017, 207 complaints were made. Only a third were passed to statutory bodies stop 43% of the complaints were made against clerics approximately 50% of those were passed on to the police.

 

Clericalism has been a factor. Abusers have found they can hide in the church. When disclosures have been made, abusers have been moved or protected. What is the church during about abuse of power? Is there a worldwide protocol?. The Church of England has a position of influence throughout the world. In the analysis of accounts given to the truth project, or Anglican accounts almost half survivors disclosed to a member of clergy at the time of the offences so it is vital that staff know what to do when disclosures are made.

 

The church accepts there are problems not only in Chichester but throughout the country.

 

We will hear about the case of Timothy Storey, a youth leader in Southwark who used texts and grooming to rape at least three 16 to 77-year-old girls. The case has been reviewed. He was convicted. There has been a failure to implement policies and practice. Storey should have been referred to the police but instead was confronted in house and his excuses were accepted

 

We will hear about Rev Derek Buckley. It was an allegation that sexual assault sexually assaulted a boy in a dark room in the 1980s. He is now deceased. How can a good investigation place?

 

We will hear about Canon John Roberts. In 1999 he was then rural Dean. He’s been found guilty of two indecent assault offences on males under the age of 18. His bishop considered it was a miscarriage of justice and went on to promote John Roberts to the position of Canon. He retired in 2002 and was given permission to officiate. A 2003 criminal records check showed no conviction. A subsequent Bishop, Bishop James Jones wrote to the Home Office and was told that this was a problem with the Home Office system. He was then given a permission to officiate in 2003 conditional upon him having no contact with children. It was found later that he had had contact with children whilst ministering. His permission was withdrawn in 2015 because he had persistently breached conditions.

 

Robert Waddington. He was the Dean of Manchester Cathedral between 1984 and 1993. There were allegations made between 1999 and 2005. The then Archbishop of York, David Hope, was criticised for failing to consider his risk to children failing to take advice from his diocesan safeguarding adviser. The report of Judge Sally K Hill QC published in 2014 was critical of him and made recommendations.

 

AN-F15 raped or attempted to rape AN-A4. AN-A4 reported the abuse to many members of the clergy over a period of 30 years. He found a lack of awareness and no one willing to escalate the report or to provide help to him.

 

Bishop Victor Whitsey, Bishop of Chester. 13 people complained to Cheshire police. It is suggested that Bishop Peter Forster mishandled complaints and we will hear about these from Bishop Forster later.

 

Trevor Devamanikkan (“TD”) – retired in 2006. Was charged in 2017 of buggery times three and indecent assault times three against Rev Matthew Ineson. Matthew Ineson had been sent to TD as a youth due to a falling out at home. He was to live with TD at his vicarage in Bradford. Matthew Ineson made disclosures between 2012 and 2016 and alleges that there was a failure by bishops he spoke to to either provide him with support or refer the case to the police.

 

The truth project findings have been that religion, especially the Anglican Church permeates into family life and makes it difficult for those affected to come forward. Perpetrators are generally held in high esteem. They have respect and privilege they were able to spend time alone with children. Often when abuses disclosed the reputation of the church is seen as paramount and taking action to help the complainant is minimised. Components may suffer with a lifetime of mental health problems and poor emotional health.

 

We will hear that the past cases review of 2010 had significant deficiencies with its results and Roger Singleton will explain the deficiencies and the rationale behind past cases review Mk II.

 

Operation Redstone run by Lincolnshire police has achieved three convictions so far – Stephen Crabtree admitted offences in 2001 but the these were not passed on to the police. Stephen Bayley was convicted of 15 indecent assault offences in 2017 and was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.). He was housemaster of Lincoln Cathedral School and was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.

 

Alana Lawrence of MACSAS (Ministry and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors) complains that the church continues to treat those coming forward with allegations with ‘polite obstinacy’ is. A report by SC I E and managed by Sheila Fish will say that the church needs to own its problems, provide long-term support, person centred support, to listen and feedback. The Church of England say that they will co-design a victim’s Charter. There is doubt from MACSAS about the safe spaces project. MACSAS are also concerned that the church cannot continue to monitor itself internally. There has to be external independent supervision on safeguarding issues.

 

There is criticism from within church ranks. Bishop Alan Wilson will give evidence on this. Peter Hancock, Graham Tilby, John Sentamu and Justin Welby will also give evidence.

 

On reparations Julie McFarlane criticised the legal process. Phil Johnson and Alana Lawrence have also criticised this. Julie McFarlane engaged with the insurance company to bring together the ‘guiding principles’ in 2016 and then revised in 2018.

 

Bishop Philip North of Burnley says that compensation needs to be given generously and freely. We will hear from the insurance company’s representative, David Bonehill. How has the insurance company approached cases? Did the insurance company tell the church not to talk to complainants? We will hear about the relationship between the insurer and the Church Commissioners the insurer is a wholly owned subsidiary of the all churches trust. Three trustees of the trust are clergy members. The insurer gave £100 million to the all churches trust last year. The all churches trust says it operates separately to the insurer. The insurer says that it is regulated.

 

We’ll hear about recruitment, training and professional development. The church has introduced compulsory training and 69,000 basic training courses have been completed. Some continue to refuse to attend.

 

On vetting and barring, some say the current system is not fit for its purpose. Full conviction checks are only necessary for those working with children.

 

On discipline, the Clergy discipline measure (“CDM”) was changed in 2016. It enabled the suspension of clergy and took away the one year rule in abuse cases. It also permitted compulsory risk assessments.

 

On permission to officiate, criticisms of the inadequate records are kept, there is poor enforcement and inconsistent enforcement. What has the church done on this?.

 

We will be discussing the seal of the confessional with two opposing sides of the argument.

 

On Mandatory reporting the Charity commission say that it would generate too much work but agree that a new offence of ‘is deliberately concealing an offence’ should be created.

 

On cultural attitudes, some still refuse to believe that Vicars can be capable of some types of sexual abuse. Some refuse to have conviction checks. Experts say will be years or decades to turn a cultural around some confused homosexuality with child abuse.

 

On cathedrals, these are separate organisations and are not required to be part of the diocesan safeguarding structure although many are. Children spend a lot of time there. SC I E audits are underway. There is no uniform approach. There is no independent oversight. They are often run by volunteers who may be unregulated.

 

On the deceased allegations, we have the report on Bishop George Bell by Alex Carlisle and the second internal report. Bishop Whitsey is the subject of a core group at present.

 

Funding centrally was £895,000 in 2014. This rose to £5.9 million in 2019.

 

We are looking at various dioceses and the Edina Carmi report will be helpful.

 

The SCIE report concluded that detailed guidance on various matters was helpful but it was too detailed for most in the church to digest and had to be simplified. There were also very concerned that all decisions still depend on Bishops.

 

The Church in Wales is not established. 27,500 people regularly attend in Wales. It educates 6% of the population. There are six independent cathedrals new policies have been drawn up 2014 and 2016. Compulsory training was brought in 2015 for all clerics. Guidance in Wales requires clerics to report to police and social services any concerns.

 

Richard scorer

 

Survivors want the church to report allegations to the police. Survivors want independent investigation and oversight. He criticises the thicket of documentation and criticised the proper proposed ombudsman. He says this CDM process needs to be independent.

 

David Greenwood (on behalf of MACSAS and other complainant Core Participants)

 

IICSA Anglican Inquiry

Wider Church Investigation

Opening on behalf of MACSAS and AN-A1 to A6, Phil Johnson, Julie MacFarlane, Graham Sawyer and Rev Matthew Ineson

 

  1. The Anglican Church can be a force for good. It creates communities. It can help those in need. There are very many worthy people doing much good, but from a safeguarding perspective the Anglican Church presents us with a huge unregulated area of activity. It is a magnet for the vulnerable. It draws in children to youth groups, choirs and for spiritual guidance.
  2. We have seen through previous investigations in Chichester and Peter Ball that it is a place where paedophiles have good reason to feel safe.
  3. I will not dwell on the obvious problem of the church’s web-like structure. I have advocated a more corporate structure will bring accountability, fines and the enforced raising of standards. At present we have Bishops as the final arbiters on safeguarding responses. This brings inconsistency and the temptation to protect individual and the organisation’s reputation. We must find a way to break this dangerous safeguarding structure.
  4. The Church has tried to plug the holes exposed by the Chichester Inquiry. It has introduced many detailed responses some of which are an improvement but as we will see from the evidence of Jo Kind of MACSAS they are inadequate and a smoke screen to get through the current scrutiny.
  5. The Gen Synod document GS2092[1] is a report by the National safeguarding steering group of 2018. Its reference is ACE026363. It recommends that clergy, lay readers, churchwardens, and PCCs have “due regard” for guidance issued by the House of Bishops. This phraseology is inadequate. Only the mandatory referral externally would be acceptable to MACSAS.
  6. On changes to the clergy discipline measure, the church is “considering external scrutiny”. This obfuscatory language demonstrates an unwillingness to change unless forced to do so by legislation. Again here independence is needed to enforce dismissals, fines and awards of compensation. Cultural change will only come about through the enforcement of tough penalties.
  7. The GS2092 document argues that independent oversight would mean the church contracting out of its responsibilities. In fact what happen if independence is not introduced is that once the heat of IICSA scrutiny and potential legislation dies down the church will revert to type. It will continue to deal with issues quietly and internally. This is what organisations with reputations to protect do.
  8. All the measures announced fail to deliver true independence or mandatory reporting. If a bishop wishes to avoid reporting to the police or social services he or she can still legally do so even after the introduction of the new proposed initiative. Bishops are hopelessly conflicted in their duties. On one hand, they have the good name of their dioceses and staff to protect. On the other, they are tasked with responding well to allegations of abuse. The proposed ombudsman service is a figleaf. It would only covered those persistent and strong enough to complain about the poor handling they have already endured. It is clear that the church is unwilling to commit to independence.
  9. The National safeguarding steering group ACE026363 proposal uses vague wording such as agreeing to “develop and analyse options: develop proposals: consider findings: commission a working group: and undertake an analysis”. There is no commitment by the church to relinquish control of responses to safeguarding concerns. This is deliberate behaviour. The church is trying to buy time until IICSA goes away. MACSAS is not going away and I hope the IICSA recommendations will be very forceful.
  10. Until true independence is established there remains a concern that the National safeguarding team has insufficient power to intervene where poor safeguarding compliance exists. It is not clear whether bishops, Deans and Archbishops can prevent the National safeguarding team having access to documents and staff within their organisations and only the establishment of a truly independent body to manage church safeguarding operations, established through legislation can ensure proper oversight. Church officeholders and employees are a fairly small and close-knit community. As your hearings have so far demonstrated, bonds of loyalty to each other and the organisation are strong and can easily override official policy. Only external independent decision-makers can avoid this real risk.
  11. I should share with you the comment from a core participant who commented that the tears shed by Justin Welby in his first appearance here were not tears of shame but were tears arising from the realisation that his organisation and his office has been found to have failed. It has placed too much emphasis on protecting clergy and bishops and has allowed children to go unprotected. They were tears at being caught out. The core participant told me it is actually the church that should be ashamed of the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. We have seen how George Carey felt a compulsion to protect one of his bishops. We know that David Hope protected Robert Waddington. There is evidence that Bishops continue to be protected by Mr Welby.
  12. On internal discipline the Clergy Disciplinary Measure procedure must surely be another embarrassment for the church. Its ludicrous rules have led to complaints being timed out after a year and many claims being dismissed or decisions to take no action taken all without independent scrutiny. What kind of discipline measure has impenetrable rules, allows an alleged perpetrator to comment on whether a case can be considered out of time, and (as per the CDM 2018 report attests only 90 complaints covering over 20,000 members). The CDM summary report tells us that most of the 90 were either dismissed by the Bishop, had no action taken or a penalty by consent imposed. Only 7 reached consideration by the President of Tribunals. Only four were dismissed from office (these came after criminal conviction). It bears no relation to most employer/ employee disciplinary codes.
  13. Interestingly, 24 complaints were made against Bishops. All apart from the 6 still outstanding were dismissed or no action taken by Messrs Welby and Sentamu.
  14. We will hear from Matthew Ineson[2] in week two about his appalling treatment by Bishops which prompted Mr Welby to take no action despite a catalogue of inaction and lies. It seems Mr Welby is continuing in Mr Carey’s footsteps by protecting his Bishops.
  15. We now know that the church has regular business meetings to manage its reputational risk. Discreditting Matthew Ineson has been discussed. We also know the church is convinced it can resist any recommendations IICSA may have to introduce independence into the safeguarding process. When it comes to safeguarding this is a thoroughly disreputable organisation which cannot be trusted.
  16. We will hear today from AN-A4[3] about how he tried to tell literally dozens of senior church people over 3 decades and was not taken seriously. Some have forgotten his disclosure. Some have not. He complains of the withdrawal of counselling as soon as a civil claim was intimated. A core group was established without his knowledge and without him being invited to attend. It discussed damage limitation rather than his welfare. He is concerned at a conflict of interest between the church insurer and the church which has staffed its board.
  17. On the subject of the past cases review we will hear from Roger Singleton who is rightly critical of the woefully inadequate terms of reference and treatment of the data. The review resulted in the church declaring it had a clean bill of health when nothing could have been further from the truth. The church treated us all like children. It lied to us and it lied to the children and their parents who put their trust in the church. It put them at unacceptable risk and until the Past Cases Review is re-run with an in depth analysis children are still at risk in this church.
  18. For all these reasons I ask the panel to find that a) the Anglican Church is unable to effectively respond to child sexual abuse risks; b) Legislation is required to
  19. i) enact mandatory reporting.
  20. ii) create an independent statutory body to enforce basic standards of safeguarding. This statutory body would establish:
    1. A Register of Institutions fit to look after children
    2. It would be an offence to look after children without being on the Register.
    3. To be on the Register the institution will have to introduce a corporate structure
    4. The registered institution should be forced to adhere to the minimum standards of safeguarding regulation.
    5. The independent body would have the power to prosecute organisations for breaches of regulations. Fines would be imposed for breaches. Organisations could be prevented from working with children.
    6. All complaints would be passed to this independent body by any receiving institution with a criminal sanction for failing to do so.
    7. The body would gather information from complainants, regulated institutions and third parties. It would have the power to compel disclosure of material.
    8. The body would liaise with and assist civil authorities such as the Police and Social Services. The body would ensure that police and other statutory organisations are taking appropriate action within reasonable timescale.
    9. The body would investigate complaints using a “balance of probabilities” standard of proof.  There would be no statute of limitations under this scheme. The independent body would have the power to make awards of compensation similar to the CICA. It would have the power to decide on the support to be offered to a complainant and a scheme would be established to provide adequate compensation taking into account the effects on quality of life and a series of factors.
    10. Complainants will be allowed to take advice from lawyers and a contribution to legal costs would be awarded
    11. The cost of the body’s work would be paid from a levy on institutions and those culpable would pay for the costs of dealing with individual cases in which they are involved.

David Greenwood

28th June 2019

 

Nigel Giffin QC on behalf of the archbishops Council.

 

Mr Giffin acknowledges that the failures in Chichester and repeatable are not unique. The church will listen and not undertake a cosmetic exercise. The enquiry has created the impetus for reform he thinks that for bishops and clergy to have ‘is due regard’ is for guidance from the house of Bishops is good enough. The clergy discipline measure is still being reviewed. The church is in favour of extending the positions of trust offences to clergy. He acknowledges it is a large task and there is no room for complacency. The archbishops Council agrees that they need to own and embed safeguarding. He opposes independence on safeguarding on the basis that it would cause delay and disruption. He emphasises the churches shame.

 

Mr Powell (Church in Wales)

 

He confirmed that the Church in Wales has been disestablished for 100 years and that they are able to be slightly more progressive than the Church of England.

 

Rory Phillips QC (ecclesiastical insurance group).

 

The insurer has no control over the church. He goes on to explain how insurance operates and that his insurance company is actually very progressive.

 

AN-A4.

 

F-15 was a senior church lawyer working in Cambridge but had a flat in London. He was A4’s  fathers mentor. Age 13 to 15 he would be courteous A4. He took him five or six times to London to serve the Eucharist and stayed at his flat overnight each time. They talked and on the last occasion F15 attempted to rape him violently.

 

A4 told over 30 clerics. He told Tim Thornton, Paul Butler and Andrew Nunn. In 2014 you made a civil claim for damages. He found that Sheryl Kent of the diocese of London was very good. He felt profoundly re-abused through the insurance and compensation process with what he describes as horse trading.

 

He discovered that 3 to 4 weeks after the compensation meeting a core group had been established that neither he nor his lawyer, David Greenwood were allowed to attend. His confidentiality was broken 14 times over a period of three days on the insurance company website.

 

An independent review was commissioned from Ian Elliott (independent safeguarding expert) which criticised the church handling of his case and similar cases.

 

The lead safeguarding Bishop at the time, Paul Butler, was genuinely apologetic in his hand written letter

 

A4 was unhappy with response he got from senior bishops. At one point he is counselling was withdrawn because he had written a letter of claim through a lawyer. He believes it is not possible for any senior figure to lead change as they are too busy protecting their structure, institution and assets. He believes that deep surgery is required on the organisation.

 

He managed to get a mediation meeting after threatening to advertise his plight with 5000 flyers in Durham and Exeter.

 

He believes only the next generation of church leaders will promote change. He believes that mandatory reporting has to be the bedrock of change and a serious measure of independent oversight.

 

A4 is 60 with little income, no job and no pension despite being in the church all his life. He is currently supporting and advocating on behalf of survivors

 

Ian Elliott

 

He explains that he was asked to write report on how A4 was treated. He found that the procedures within the church were inadequate and that little training or awareness was apparent. He says he made recommendations at the time but now thinks that he did not go far enough in that he now advocates independent oversight of safeguarding responsibilities in the church. His background is of a social worker.

 

David Bonehill (director of ecclesiastical insurance group)

 

He was asked many questions about how the insurance procedure operates in these cases and he fairly explained the procedures and outlined that ecclesiastical is the most progressive insurer in this field.

 

The problematic part of his evidence was the issue of the withdrawal of counselling for A4. It is alleged that the order to withdraw payment of counselling for A4 came from the insurer. Paul Butler, the lead safeguarding Bishop and Sheryl Kent suggested the order came from the insurer. David Bonehill denies this although he has not waived privilege on relevant documentation so we cannot see his documentation. We are asked to take his word. There is substantial dispute over who made the decision to withdraw a force counselling and why. It is not disputed that it caused A4 much anguish.

 

Bishop Alan Wilson

 

He was critical of the church and advocates independent oversight of safeguarding.

 

Roger Singleton.

 

He advocates keeping safeguarding within the church does not support independent oversight.

 

A88.

 

She is the daughter of a vicar. Father had left. The family were vulnerable and they were asked to meet the Bishop, Bishop Victor Whitsey. The Bishop indecently assaulted her and her brother at the Bishop’s Palace in Chester. In 2015 she disclosed this to her brother at the internment of her mother’s ashes. A vicar, Elaine Chegwin overheard the conversation but only reported it to the diocesan safeguarding adviser in June 2017. Cheshire police started operation Coverage in 2016 and A88 described them as having been superb throughout. Her brother has since died and she complains that he would have been in a happier state if he had known that something had been done about it before he died. She feels the church is still marking its own homework. She is in teaching herself and is suspicious of people marking their own homework. She advocates an independent body to oversee safeguarding. Only that will change the culture. She has co-authored a book. She criticises white male hegemonic values she says the church is perceived as powerful and is actually powerful.

 

Bishop Peter Forster. Bishop of Chester.

 

Man in his 60s. Cooperative but slightly condescending in manner. Wine coloured shirt with dog collar and grey jacket.

 

He thinks things are getting better but they still a lot to. He was asked to comment on three cases arising in Chester, his own diocese.

 

Ian Hughes was convicted in 2014 possession of indecent images. He was immediately suspended. The guidance is that he should be suspended for life but Bishop Peter Foster advocated that he should be suspended for 20 years. The president of tribunal’s, Andrew McFarlane agreed this was the decision made by Bishop Forster. He was questioned closely on how and why he believed a man found with 8000 child sex abuse images on his computer could be allowed back into ministry. He explained his decision by the fact that he knew Ian Hughes personally and there was a hint that Bishop Forster did not consider the possession of child sex abuse images as being very serious.

 

Bishop Victor Whitsey. A reader had told Bishop Forster in 2002 that he had been touched by Victor Whitsey. The reader says he made a disclosure of sexual abuse to Bishop Forster. Bishop Forster only has a vague memory of Whitsey engaging in odd behaviour and putting his arm around him. He has a limited memory of it. Bishop Forster took no action in 2002. The allegation was made again by this reader in 2016. He apologised. Before telling the police in 2016 Forster asked around to find out if there were any other similar allegations before telling the police. This was an error.

 

In 2009 Gordon Dickenson disclosed to Bishop Forster that he had indecently assaulted a child in 1974 and that Bishop Whitsey and then moved him to another parish and taken no further action. Knowing this Bishop Forster renewed his permission to officiate as he believed his risk of reoffending was low. Bishop Forster accepted that this was a misjudgement. He should have sought further advice and he didn’t refer it to the Diocesan safeguarding adviser. He didn’t report it to the police. Roger Singleton is taking out a clergy discipline measure complaint against Bishop Forster because of this failure.

 

 

 

Sheila Fish (social care Institute for excellence).

 

Woman in 40s. Brown hair. Glasses. Blue/grey dress.

 

Her organisation is mainly funded by the Department of health. It aims to provide a global picture of an organisation which is audited and to look at its strengths and weaknesses. During audits they interview key staff and the case files of three days. When looking at their audits of the palaces at Bishopthorpe and Lambeth, they decided to add on the perspective of victims who have been through the process.

 

Mrs Fish pointed out that staffing in dioceses has essentially has increased in recent years. Diocesan safeguarding advisers are sharing good practice and are meeting up. She also sees much more detailed guidance but is unhappy with the lack of mandatory reporting and the term ‘due regard’ being weak. Training is also improved.

 

The underlying vulnerabilities are that the bishop in the diocese has complete responsibility of the safeguarding decisions. She considers that diocesan safeguarding advisers should be recruited and organised nationally and independently. She believes that current guidance encourages inconsistency.

 

She found some positives in some cathedrals. The adequacy of safeguarding teams was good. Choir management is good and codes of conduct are used in a couple of places.

 

She believes Cathedral rules and guidance could be better but it is not clear how much influence Diocesan safeguarding advisers have over cathedral safeguarding.

 

The outcome of the victim consultation was that the church fails to publicise where it gets things wrong, it should recognise named individuals who have pushed the safeguarding agenda, it fails to provide long term support, the core group arrangements are loose and inadequate, there is little advocacy or support for people who report abuse and no ability for survivors to report on how they were treated.

 

On the church plans (document GS 2092) she feels the document is well intended but believes the church are pushing ahead without taking account of the views of victims and how it will work in practice she has found all survivors she has worked with to be reasonable, astute and knowledgeable.

 

Bishop Mark Tanner.

 

He is a man in his 40s, wine coloured shirt, dog collar, black jacket, a large cross on a chain around his neck, dark hair and glasses.

 

He is the head Bishop of training at the Cranmer Hall, Durham. He explains the process of a person seeking sponsorship from the Bishop, a three day assessment and then starting at his college. Once the college is completed they are passed on to a degree level education and training at a “TEI”. Bishops have the final say in this process also.

 

Justin Humphreys.

 

Man in his 40s, short dark hair, blue suit, white shirt, blue tie.

 

He is the director of 30-1:8. His organisation educates churches to provide safer places. He worked a lot with the Anglican Church on training and risk assessments. He takes feedback from survivors that most churches don’t offer enough support. Responses are slow, there are no apologies, they are often not believed and their experience is not valued in the way it should be. He believes training of clergy and church workers needs to be flexible. There should be useful minimum standards which everyone can understand rather than detailed guidance. He is critical of the ombudsman suggestion as complainants would have to have exhausted all complaints mechanisms before going to an ombudsman. He advocates independence in the clergy discipline measure system, standard quality for safeguarding and an Inspectorate arrangement with the inspectorate to ‘have teeth’. He believes final decisions on safeguarding needs to be done by independent people.

 

Rupert Bursell.

 

Man in his 60s, navy suit, red tie, white hair and glasses.

 

Former circuit judge. Ordained for 51 years. He talks about the origins and legalities of the confessional. He believes there is nothing standing in the way of the church amending its laws to make an exception to the seal of the confessional requiring clergy to report confessions of child abuse to the police. He believes there should be a mandatory reporting duty which will cover this type of crime in or out of the confessional. He believes it is urgently needed.

 

Mark Sowerby.

 

He is the Bishop of Horsham. Man in his 50s, wine coloured shirt, dog collar, glasses, grey hair, pale jacket. He is deputy head of safeguarding.

 

He was on the working party under seal of the confessional which arose after the Robert Waddington case in which Waddington had influenced of his victims to remain silent because it happened in the confessional.

 

The working party decided that was not possible to make an exception to the seal of the confessional for admissions of abuse and so decided to remain with the status quo which is the seal of the confessional should continue. The solution he has advocated is that the clergy man should withhold absolution until the confessee reports their crime personally to the police.

 

He believes that each diocese should continue to look after day to day work but historic cases should be dealt with by an independent person safeguarding adviser. He believes that the clergy discipline measure should continue to be decided by the diocesan bishop.

 

Alistair Oatey.

 

Man in his 40s, dark hair, glasses, open necked white shirt, brown jacket.

 

Chief Executive of Cambridge theological Federation. His organisation gives degrees and carries out final training for ordinands at Ridley Hall, Westcott college and East region ministry. Half the teaching is academic and half is formation training. Ordinands have to do three levels of training he admits that there is criticism that current training only requires ordinands to understand policies and procedures and not necessarily know how to use them.

 

Rosemary Lane priestly.

 

Woman with short grey hair, blue shirt, dog collar, pale brown jacket.

 

She is an archdeacon and adviser to the dioceses of London. She was involved in reviewing the Timothy Storey case. He was convicted in 2016 and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. The judge was very critical of the diocese in the case.

 

The judgement of Jeremy Crossley, Vicar in the diocese was naive and very poor. Despite Storey admitting having slept with 16 and 17-year-old girls when he was a youth leader, his excuses were accepted.

 

It was found that the Rev Valentine also made poor decisions.

 

It was decided that neither of the failing clergy should have to undergo complaints to the clergy discipline measure variously because there was collective failure and that it could impact on the survivors. The only admonishment was a stern meeting with the Bishop.

 

It emerged that naivety, stupidity and incompetence cannot be prosecuted through the clergy discipline measure.

 

The statements of Michael and Angel, Alex Carlisle, Richard Fenton, Colin Perkins, Jo kind, Susan Young, Mike Heaton, Prof Sally Holland, Samantha Waters and Albert Heaney will be published on the website.

 

Archbishop John Davies and Simon Lloyd.

 

Archbishop Davies was a man in his 60s with grey hair, a wine coloured shirt and dog collar. Simon Lloyd is the provincial secretary for Wales. He wore a grey suit, lilac shirt and purple tie. He is a man in his 60s with grey hair.

 

The Church in Wales is clearly a organisation with more dynamic governance. It is disestablished from the church of England. There are many older members of the Church in Wales. Some of the members leave if they are required to undergo CRB checks. The church has terms of service for all its clerics which includes stringent conditions. It has a disciplinary tribunal mechanism. If a complaint is raised it goes to a triage process to decide who should deal with it and that person takes ownership of the complaint

 

 

Edina Carmi

 

She is a safeguarding expert. She wrote a report on six cases studied in the Church of Wales.

 

The first was a choirboy invited back to choir Master’s house who engaged him in oral sex. Police did not prosecute as it was “word on word”. It was recommended that the choirmaster be suspended. The vicar opposed the suspension and the Bishop did not take any action. This was criticised also as there was no investigation. Archbishop Davies says there should have been advice taken from a diocesan safeguarding adviser and should have been followed.

 

In the second case husband was accused of offending against children. The husband did not work in a church although his wife was ordained. She supported him unreasonably and she stood aside due to criticism but then wanted to come back into the church. Mrs Carmi pointed out a lack of good record-keeping and why no disciplinary proceedings had been taken as the wife’s behaviour was “conduct unbecoming”. The wife stepped down but was then given permission to officiate. Edina calm is strongly of the opinion that diocesan safeguarding advisers should make the final decisions rather than the Bishop.

 

Archbishop Davies thinks that Diocesan safeguarding advisers should be able to direct a bishop to take particular action.

 

The Archbishop also says that there should not be conditions on permissions to officiate as they are unenforceable.

 

Fay Howe.

 

She is a provincial safeguarding officer for the Church in Wales. The background is as a social worker. She complains that there are not enough resources in her service and there should be at least double the amount of staff that they currently have. She drafted then redrafted the Church in Wales policies. A lot of her work is the assessment of sex offenders who are parishioners and elder financial abuse. She believes that they need a better recording system which should be computerised.

 

They currently discuss cases in panels and a final decision is arrived at usually by her but agrees it would be useful for her to be able to direct bishops. If the case requires input from support and counselling they refer to MACSAS and only very rarely pay for counselling.

 

She would like to have unfettered access to clergy personnel files (blue files). At present she has to ask each bishop for permission to see them.

 

The case was mentioned of a bell ringer who had offended in England. Police took no action. He wanted to work bell ringing in Wales. Her office recommended that it should not be allowed until a risk assessment was carried out. The Bishop actually found an unsatisfactory compromise.

 

Monday, 8 July 2019.

 

X2 – Vicar in a parish in the diocese of London (Amonymous).

 

There was an allegation against an employee in in the parish. The accused was F23. The child was A121. This vicar used ACAS guidelines rather than the clergy discipline measure. It was alleged that there was indecent touching. He had to decide on the balance of probabilities AND decided that there was no sexual activity. He assumed that the diocesan and safeguarding adviser would carry out an assessment but this didn’t happen. It was reported to the wrong police station. The diocesan safeguarding adviser was overwhelmed and busy. It is recommended that F23 has more training.

 

Miss Carmi criticised the report for not recommending a further assessment of F23. X2 has dealt with only four cases in the eight years of him being a vicar. ‘Has my training as a clergy member equipped me well ? I should have a tick list to direct me to things I need to do”.

 

Edina Carmi.

 

Woman in her 50s, blonde hair, yellow dress.

 

She gave evidence to IICSA in 2018 regarding Terence Banks at Chichester Cathedral. She has also been involved in the SCIE the reports. She has been the lead on quality assurance for the SCIE reports on Sheffield, Worcester, London, York and the six Church in Wales cases.

 

Worcester.

 

Case one

 

Text messages from a 70-year-old to an 18-year-old girl. No action was taken by the police. A safeguarding agreement was put in place but this took nine months to be signed and 13 months before it was implemented. The vicar worked well with the diocesan safeguarding adviser. The DSA did not see the victim alone (this may have given the full story). The DSA did see 70 year old. Delays in the case were criticised. The safeguarding agreement took a long time to implement and no review was undertaken.

 

Miss Carmi would like to see a system by which safeguarding agreements are monitored fully.

 

Case two.

 

A man who was not a church officer had been convicted of sex offending. A risk assessment was carried out. He appealed his sentence through the criminal courts. There was no investigation of exactly what had taken place. Miss Carmi felt that there was insufficient investigation and that the risk could not therefore be adequately assessed. There was criticism that an information sharing agreement between the church, police and probation service is not in place.

 

Case three.

 

A man who was the brother of the parish safeguarding officer had been convicted 30 years earlier. He was already doing roles in the parish and the question was raised whether he had to have a DBS check. This raised the issue of conflicts of interests where families are involved with churches parishes. It was resolved by the individual relinquishing his role.

 

Case four.

 

This was a convicted child offender wishing to worship in an Anglican Church. He moved between Anglican and Roman Catholic churches. Here Mr Carney thought that the two denominations had worked well together.

 

Sheffield.

 

Case one.

 

The man who had been placed on the sex offenders register at age 14 went to prison for inciting a girl and the age of 16 to have sex. His family attended a church. He wanted to attend also. A safeguarding agreement was put in place. He was criticised as being inadequate as he was high risk. His stepfather was also on the agreement monitoring group. This was a case where family ties were so close that they created a conflict. It was resolved by the man being recalled to prison.

 

Case two.

 

13 and 17-year-old children were having sex. This was known to the youth club for three months before the issue was raised to the diocesean safeguarding adviser. There was criticism of the poor action here.

 

London.

 

Case one.

 

A volunteer hugged an eight-year-old girl and pinched her bottom. The diocesan safeguarding adviser and local authority were involved. A safeguarding agreement was putting in place. All recording of London cases were very difficult to follow. There was no chronological log. This could possibly have been because not all information is capable of being printed by the London dioceses.

 

There was criticism that no investigation was done. Witnesses were not questioned. Only a cursory investigation was undertaken of the volunteer.

 

Case two.

 

This involves a parishioner who had been convicted of an offence in the 1970s. The Bishop found out in 2008 did not tell the diocesan safeguarding adviser. Once it became known the diocesan safeguarding adviser started a risk assessment. At time (2008) it had not been a requirement to do a risk assessment of parishioners. This is a case in which it demonstrates that it is good to apply new practices to older cases to bring all individuals in the church up to date.

 

This case raised the issue of the interpretation of who was a church officer or not. Creating a core group applies to all church officers and does not apply to non-church officers. Miss Carmi feels that clearer guidance is required.

 

Case four.

 

This was a case of allegations made to the diocese of Chichester of abuse in the 1970s. The survivor wanted no police action wanted a CDM in to be initiated. This is a good case to demonstrate how diocese can work with another. There was some criticism however of not updating the survivor.

 

York.

 

Case one.

 

Person was charged with an offence and found not guilty. The person was a server at a church. The diocesan safeguarding adviser designated him as a church officer and wanted to initiate a risk assessment and core group and potentially safeguarding agreement. The vicar X7was blocking action, became angry and refused. The vicar had become aware of the offences dating back to 1999 and 2011 involving indecent assault (x4) but these were not passed on to the DSA. The accused was a member of a PCC. The person eventually stood down from the PCC. The vicar here, X7 was behaving irresponsibly. There was criticism of the Bishop for not initiating a CDM against him. The core group decisions were found to be good eventually.

 

Case two.

 

A high-risk offender was convicted in 2015. Since the 1980s he has had roles in the church with children he tried to join the Church of England, United reformed Church and Methodists. Each denomination works together to risk assess him.

 

Church in Wales.

 

WA1.

 

The case of a man living rent free in a house (choirmaster) having mutual oral sex with a 17-year-old boy. The vicar ignored the diocese and safeguarding advisers advice and there was criticism that the vicar was not disciplined. He should have followed rules. There was no risk assessment. The vicar’s response was inappropriate and poor practice. The Bishop failed to discipline him. This case shows how difficult it can be when clergy or bishop refused for accept the advice of safeguarding professionals.

 

WA2

 

A non-practising cleric propositioned someone. He was then convicted of an offence. This was a case of good practice but there was concern that he had not been picked up earlier and dismissed from office.

 

WA3.

 

Head teacher who was also a minister inappropriately defended her sex abuser husband. Very poor record-keeping. The core group decide that there will not allow this person to have permission to officiate under any circumstances but are directed to go on to do a risk assessment. The case takes five years to resolve.

 

WA4.

 

This is a case of a child attending an ecumenical service. The incident took place. The local authority and church failed to work out whose responsibility it was for safeguarding children at these services.

 

WA5.

 

This was a case of good working practices between the dioceses in Wales.

 

WA6.

 

The young man with learning difficulties abuse of a small child. This found to have been handled well.

 

In conclusion Ms Carmi considers that safeguarding professionals have a lack of power when they come up against the vicar or Bishop who is obstinate.

 

Miss Carmi thinks that this safeguarding service should be a national service. At present there seems to be only gentle prodding from Bishops to clergy when stronger sanction is required.

 

Miss Carmi believes that there needs to be clear responsibility about who makes safeguarding decisions. Diocesan safeguarding advisers need to be independent there is concern about blurring of lines between the DSAs and clergy and bishops.

 

She advises that unless diocese and safeguarding advisers can be appointed independently and direct bishops to take action we will need truly independent inspectorate managing cases and making decisions.

 

Tuesday 9th July 2019.

 

X3.

 

Vicar in diocese of Worcester.

 

In 2017 70-year-old man sent texts to a 18-year-old girl. The 70-year-old man was linked to a national sports organisation. This was grooming. The vicar worked on it on Friday and over the weekend with the diocese and safeguarding adviser.

 

The complaint was handled well at parish level. It took nine months for a safeguarding agreement to be signed. The agreement was not reviewed. This was the only safeguarding mattered this vicar had dealt with.

 

Julia O’Hara.

 

Diocese York. Woman in her 30s. Classes. Black top with white spots.

 

She is a diocesan safeguarding officer. She explains a myriad of ways to get decisions from the Bishop.

 

In one case a server, a 36 who was also a reader was accused of non-recent allegations. He had been arrested and went to trial. A risk assessment was put in place. She did not have enough information from the police. A core group was called and it was decided that someone should attend the trial each day. The suspect was acquitted. Evidence from the trial was that the complainant’s evidence was consistent and good and used in the risk assessment.

 

Another case was 2009 complaint which was a non-recent complaint by the daughter of a retired cleric with permission to officiate. She withdrew her complaint and decided not follow it up. A clear DBS check came through in 2012 and after assessment Julia O’Hara allowed his permission to officiate to continue.

 

She does not have unfettered access to blue files. The diocesan secretary has to get them out for her and she has to ring ahead in advance.

 

Another case involved F71 who had an old conviction. In 1999 a boy, A143 was camping with him and found that F71 had unzipped sleeping bag was staring at his penis. The diocesan safeguarding adviser asked to meet with F71. The vicar refused to allow this. The vicar was X7.

 

X7.

 

Vicar in the diocese of York. Edina Carney had described his handling of the case as unsafe. X7  says that he followed advice. He admits that he wasn’t aware of the existence of the diocesan safeguarding adviser. He saw his duty as a vicar to be protective of his parishioner more than protective of the boy, A143.

 

Meg Munn.

 

She was a social worker between 1981 and 2001. Between 2000 and 2015 she was an MP. She is now on the National safeguarding panel as the independent chair.

 

She wishes to look at burdens of proof, continuing with sanctions whilst the criminal process is active, thresholds so that minor cases can be dealt with more quickly. She was to look at issues of risk (ie safeguarding is more serious than stealing). She is concerned about bishops and clergy conflict of interest on safeguarding and she wishes to look at the clergy discipline measure. She wishes the church to go back to first principles.

 

She is a believer in having safeguarding firmly within the church has been the way to embed principles.

 

She agrees there is a need to deal with conflicts between diocesan safeguarding devices and bishops.

 

She would like to see national minimum standards for all dioceses to follow. She sees oversight externally as being an OFSTED model.

 

She thinks that information sharing between councils, the police and Church is patchy.

 

She agrees with mandatory reporting but does not agree with criminal sanction although she agrees with sanction through the clergy discipline measure. She agrees that many don’t understand safeguarding in the church. She agrees that most people with non-recent allegations complain that their treatment has been poor.

 

The evidence of Stephen Slack (former head of the legal office) is adduced. These statements will be on the IICSA website. He gave advice to the house of Bishops on apologies to victims of abuse in 2007. Stephen Lake or Gloucester Cathedral is the lead Dean on safeguarding. Christine Hardman is the Bishop of Newcastle and speaks on same-sex relationships.

 

10th of July 2019.

 

Matthew Ineson.

 

As a teenager Mr Ineson had a family breakdown. He had been brought up by his grandmother who found that she could not cope. She was old-fashioned and religious. Mr Ieson was brought up in the Anglican religious tradition. He was told by a local vicar that he had to stay in Bradford with Rev Trevor Devamanikkam. He stated his vicarage in Bradford and were sexually abused and raped over a period of three months by Rev Trevor Devamanikkam. There came a time when the bishop told him to leave and he had to leave the vicarage.

 

Mr Ineson could not tell anyone because of the shame. He also did not want to upset his grandmother. He became a vicar in 2003.

 

In July 2012 he disclosed to Bishop Peter Burrows at meeting of the parochial church council. He was unhappy with Bishop Burrows safeguarding response and confided in him that the reason he was unhappy was that child sexual abuse had happened to him. Mr Ineson expected Bishop Burrows to do something about it and investigate it.

 

Mr Ineson subsequently told Steven Croft, the Bishop of Sheffield, about the abuse and that he had told Bishop Burrows about it. This was during a telephone call following a burglary at Mr Ineson’s vicarage in his parish in Rotherham.

 

Mr Ineson told Bishop Steven Croft again in February 2013 of the telephone.

 

Mr Ineson also told his then Archdeacon, Martyn Snow. Mr Ineson told him during a heated argument.

 

In March 2013 Mr Ineson wrote to Bishop Stephen Croft and mentioned the abuse in the letter.

 

1 June 2013 he wrote again to Steven Croft about the reason for his resignation and copied in the Pres of tribunal’s, the Bishop of Beverley and the Archbishop of York John Sentamu. Mr Ineson received no reply.

 

Mr Hunter recounted the failed attempts to reports to Rotherham police of which he has documentary evidence.

 

He eventually spoke to West Yorkshire police in 2015 and Rev Trevor Devamanikkam was charged.

 

Mr Ineson was offered support for the church but felt it would not be independent so he found an independent counselling service in Bradford called Mosaic II.

 

The Rev Trevor Devamanikkam committed suicide on the day that he was due to attend the magistrates court. Mr Ineson was informed of this by the police on the same day.

 

Mr Ineson was by this time appalled by the poor response of the bishops and church safeguarding organisation has decided with the help of his solicitor, David Greenwood, to complain about the abuse and the lack of response from the church.

 

Each of the complaints against Roy Williamson, Steven Croft, Martyn Snow, Peter Burrows, John Sentimu and Glyn Webster were rejected as being out of time. Each bishop exercised their right to ask for the complaints to be dismissed as being out of time.

 

Further complaints were subsequently made regarding Peter Burrows who had been overheard by friend of Mr Ineson, a undertaker in Rotherham, discussing his case in a cafe Doncaster. The undertaker gave a statement and Mr Ineson complained to the information Commissioner’s office. His complaint was upheld. Despite this and Bishop Burrow’s admission that he had been gossiping about his case, Justin Welby took no action.

 

Mr Ineson was concerned that Steven Croft was enthroned as the Bishop of Oxford during the safeguarding complaints which Mr Ineson had made against him.

 

Mr Ineson complained that Martyn Snow had lied to the BBC that the judge had dismissed his the complaint against him. In fact he had taken no action. Again Justin Welby took no action on this complaint.

 

Mr Ineson complained about Steven Croft also lying on TV when he said that Mr Ineson “dropped it into a conversation”. This was not true as Mr Ineson had told him twice on the telephone and written to him twice.

 

Mr Ineson is concerned that on education, despite the cases being verified and proven, Justin Welby has taken no action. He has no faith in the outcomes of discipline measures and Mr Ineson repeated the words of the Lead safeguarding Bishop, Peter Hancock, who said the whole process has been shabby and shambolic.

 

Mr Ineson asked for a £2000 contribution to his counselling but only £500 was offered from Bishop Nick Baines.

 

Rev Ineson had a further complaint which was that the registrar to Justin Welby was also the registrar to Steven Croft. Mr Ineson and Mr Greenwood asked for Mr Rees to hand over the investigation and report writing to another registrar and it was agreed that Owen Carew-Jones would do this. Despite this, through subject access requests, Mr Ineson has discovered that John Rees has been consulted 26 times over the investigation of his complaints. Mr Ineson points out the clear conflict of interest for Mr Rees.

 

In respect of the core group, this was convened without Mr Ineson being aware, he was not allowed to be represented and nor was Trevor Devamanikkam. Members of the core group are representative of the bishops complained about and all therefore have conflicts of interest.

 

An independent review was commissioned in September 2017 by the National safeguarding team were told by John Rees that it should not happen until after the clergy discipline measure complains are completed. Mr Ineson believes the whole thing is manipulated.

 

Mr Ineson complained also that in July 2018 teen at the SCIE meeting at the General Synod in York, John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, a Bishop against whom Mr Ineson had complained, came up to Mr Ineson, held him by the shoulder and spoke in his face “What is it that you want?” Mr Ineson said he wanted apologies. Mr Sentamu said apologies mean different things to different people and that Matthew had put a boulder between them. Mr Ineson felt that his attitude was arrogant, rude and that he was a bully.

 

Mr Ineson said that he did not wish to damage the church but that there are people making decisions who should not be. He believes safeguarding should be done independently. He believes there is too much bias and conflict of interest. He believes in mandatory reporting

 

He would like a proper apology as it would be recognition of what happened to him and how he had been treated. He had been promised an apology from Justin Welby four times but it had not materialised.

 

Mr Ineson thanks David Greenwood, Tracey Brabin his MP, and the team at IICSA.

 

Mr Ineson believes that the church will revert to its old ways after IICSA unless something strong is done. He believes the church should be ashamed of the National safeguarding team and its bishops. He does not think Jesus would do what they are doing. He does not think the higher tier of bishops are fit for office.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adrian Iles.

 

Man in his 50s, grey suit. Paragraph he explains the CDM procedures as per the flow chart below.

 

The president of tribunal’s decides or advises on penalties. Bishops can disqualify a clergyman if there has been a conviction.

 

Mr Iles does investigations after Bishop has decided that it should be investigated (if the clergyman refuses to accept the penalty by consent).

 

He makes the point that the church discipline is a matter of doctrine and has its origins in the 16th century. Removing it could be considered a breach of article 9 of the human rights act, the right to express one’s religious beliefs. This is of course a qualified right and can be overridden.

 

Complaints flowchart here http://www.childabuselaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/COMPLAINTS.docx

 

 

John Sentamu.

 

He is the Archbishop of York. He wore a wine coloured shirt with a dog collar and a black jacket. He is also the Bishop of the diocese of York.

 

His job is to oversee the National safeguarding team. He is a member of the house of Bishops. Is the co-chair of the archbishop’s Council. In York he has safeguarding experts and a diocesan safeguarding advisory panel. He takes the advice of his lead on safeguarding, Julia O’Hara.

 

He failed to answer the question of what would happen if he disagreed with the diocesan safeguarding advisory panel advice. He simply answered that they have power because of their professionalism.

 

He failed to answer the question of how safeguarding in his dioceses and Province has improved over the years. He avoided answering by stating that the IICSA process has caused them to work more closely in partnership.

 

He stated that his procedures in the province have improved since the Judge Sally Cahill QC report in 2014. He avoided the question about how his province handled safeguarding between him taking up post in 2005 and 2014. He simply mentioned that he asked his team to look into dead clergy abuse.

 

He agreed that the past cases review was not adequate. He believes he has gone out of his way to put survivors of the heart of all of his work. Despite this he has seen only 15 survivors in the last 14 years.

 

He agrees that the needs of Matthew Ineson had not been made paramount.

 

On the complaint against him by Matthew Ineson he responded by saying that it was the responsibility of the diocese of Sheffield and he assumed that they were dealing with it.

 

The complaint that Mr Sentamu grabbed Mr Ineson by the shoulder and spoke in his face he said “If that is how I behave it was totally inappropriate. It was a confined room, I put my hand on his shoulder and left.” He did not remember saying “you’ve put a boulder between us”. He agrees support should be given to Matthew Ineson and he agrees that it has taken too long to set up an enquiry into the handling of Mr Ineson’s case.

 

When asked why he objected to the clergy discipline measure complaint against him when it was only 54 days outside the one year timescale, Mr Sentamu replied that it was a decision of the President of tribunals. He failed to answer the question of why he personally asked for the time limit to be imposed.

 

On the issue of the complaint about Bishop Whitsey, criticism of it by A88 that the public apology was “fluffy nonsense”, he agrees that there is not enough recognition of survivors and that clergy should drop what they are doing to help survivors.

 

When challenged that he had not dropped he was doing to help Matthew Ineson he responded by restating that it was the responsibility of the diocese of Sheffield.

 

When asked about apologies he went off on a tangent about not being aware of the Waddington case until he saw it on the TV.

 

When challenged about a passage in his statement that we should not judge things that happen in the past by today’s standards he agreed that the church has a higher moral responsibility than the wider public.

 

He went on to say that there are clergymen in his diocese where parishioners don’t believe that they could possibly have committed the offences. He believes that since the Jimmy Savile publicity society is waking up but the church has been slow to wake up. He believes the church should make it difficult for abusers.

 

He agrees that there is no distinction between contact abuse and downloading images of abuse.

 

He defends his decision not to suspend Bishop Forster as there had already been agreement between Forster and the Bishop of Birkenhead that Birkenhead would take on all safeguarding responsibilities.

 

On discussing the seal of the confessional he says he will not give absolution unless an abuser Hands himself in to the police and that the church needs to sweep away anything that stands in the way of disclosures. He develops the issue by supporting mandatory reporting although he is unclear on whether there should be criminal or disciplinary sanction only.

 

He agrees that clericalism and deference exists.

 

On the ordination of his under-trained wife he says that his wife applied to a panel which said that she would be able to begin training post ordination. She is to start training at Cranmer College later. When asked the question of whether he knew of this happening in any other case he avoided the question. He denied that she was given special dispensation because she is married to him.

 

When asked by panel member Mrs Sharp claims whether there was any impediment about an apology for Mr Ineson he said that because the evidence is contested and that the review has not yet happened and that Mr Ineson needs to agree the terms of reference, an apology could not be given.

 

11th of July 2019.

 

Graham Tilby.

 

Man in his fifties. Blue suit. Tie. Glasses.

 

The safe spaces project has taken a lot of time but we are just about to tender for an independent helpline and advocacy services. Authorise listeners have not been found useful by survivors. He would like “menu” of support. He is thinking about ”charter” of what survivors can expect.

 

Youth groups.

 

They’re not yet properly equipped on safeguarding. The C of E is the largest provider of youth services apart from the state and is behind the curve on training and integrating workers into the NST oversight.

 

Posthumous claims.

 

We are still learning the way to deal with posthumous claims. George Bell No.2 learned from the Carlisle report. We had a core group and then and independent decision maker after an independent investigation by Ray Galloway. Bell was very high profile and it would not be proportionate or affordable to do the same thing for every case.

 

Independent reviews.

 

At the end of every core group we do our own lessons learned and we do not necessarily ask an independent reviewer to look at each case. We look at the seriousness, whether there are multiple victims, multiple perpetrators, whether significant lessons can be learned and conflicts of interest.

 

There are currently three reviews. Whitsey, Devamanikkam and Smyth.

 

Matthew Ineson complains that he has not have input into the name of the reviewer or the terms of reference.

 

The SCIE report.

 

What is clear is that different dioceses respond to safeguarding concerns differently.

 

On the supremacy of bishops he says that most bishops don’t take operational decisions and leave it to the DSA. He avoids the question which was whether decision-making should be removed from bishops who are not qualified.

 

He would like to bring in national minimum safeguarding standards for every dioceses and parish.

 

There is criticism of the clergy discipline measure that the bishop can smooth things over at an early stage, preventing them going to the Pres of tribunal’s. Mr Tilby would like a completely new specialist process dealing only with child abuse. He was like working party on this.

 

He agrees that recruitment can be better. He believes the church has improved and that there is lot of sharing of information between DSAs. He would like DSAs is to work regionally. He believes taking responsibility for safeguarding outside the church would mean churches let it go. He does not have a solution to the problem of bishops being all-powerful but not accountable in dioceses.

 

He explains that core groups are to get key people together to look at risk and responding to victims and it is an internal management process. He is working on internal audits between the five yearly SCIE reports.

 

The ombudsman scheme proposal is dead.

 

He asks for statistics from dioceses every year. Only 28% of allegations reported were passed on to the statutory services. He cannot explain this.

 

Only 50% of the training has taken place. There is some resistance to doing it.

 

There has been criticism of the parish safeguarding handbook being too bulky. He will put together a one-page laminated sheet for all parishes.

 

He agrees there should be more resources and better targeted.

 

In response to a question from Prof Jay, about removing bishops from the safeguarding process altogether he says there needs to be accountability leadership but there is scope for taken out of operational decisions.

 

Justin Welby.

 

Man in his 60s. Glasses. Blackshirt. Dog collar. Short grey hair.

 

The distance we have come on the safeguarding journey depends on who you talk to. Younger ones ‘get it’.

 

He criticises Bishop Peter Forster when he considered viewing pornography to be less damaging than contact abuse. Justin Welby says the use of pornography encourages abuse.

 

Justin Welby was questioned about his response to the complainant in 2011 when he was Dean of Liverpool Cathedral. A complainant was unhappy about his contact with an employee of the cathedral, F18. The complainant wrote to Mr Welby and said that F18 should not have touched his shoulder, and talked about sex during a pastoral visit to his home. The complainant visited the cathedral and was threatening to staff.

 

Mr Welby treated the complaint as an employee complaint rather than safeguarding complaint and wrote to the complainant to say that it was his word versus the word of F18 and so he could not side with him and would take no action. Following the threats, Justin Welby barred him from entering the cathedral.

 

Justin Welby acknowledged that he had made a number of mistakes. He should have suspended F18. He treated it as a discipline matter not safeguarding. He should have seen that it was safeguarding but did not as the complainant was an adult. The complainant complained that Justin Welby exercised “casual indifference and neglect”. Justin Welby acknowledged that he did not give him enough respect.

 

Justin Welby recalls the July 2018 meeting at Synod in York. There were wide range of survivors. Some avoided contact with the church but were brave enough to come along. Some have gone back into the church. All were very dignified and very precise about what was going wrong and it had a great impact on him.

 

What has he done about safeguarding in the last 18 months?.

 

There is a safe spaces project. He will encourage the lead which on safeguarding to talk to survivors more. He will encourage the church to work in partnership with survivors more.

 

Asked about the SCIE. report he said that there needs to be a change in accountability and deference. He says he is teaching the senior leadership team on the use of power. He has encouraged regional teams of bishops to peer review each other.

 

Fiona scolding explained to him that all those working formal measures but bishops are still unaccountable. Justin Welby points to having suspended the Bishop of Lincoln in 2019. He agrees that there needs to be a safe mechanism to ensure that a DSA can hold bishops accountable. The DSA needs to be employed outside the diocese so that if they disagree with the Bishop they do not fear being sacked. He agrees that the DSA is to have the final word.

 

External audits.

 

He agrees that SCIE or another external auditor should continue indefinitely.

 

Internal audits of parishes. He agrees that safeguarding needs to be given a higher profile during these audits. Improving bias on sex, social mobility, race and disability will help safeguarding in his opinion.

 

On deference he does not have a good answer. He agrees that those such as Bishop Alan Wilson need to be critical and that the church will be poorer without him.

 

Clergy discipline measure.

 

He’s not happy with the current system. There is a need for specialised system to deal with abuse which is survivor centred and quick with clear communication and panels to investigate. There is a need to even out disparity between dioceses on safeguarding funding.

 

On Bishop selection, he states that there are questions during interviews which have in the past stopped at least one applicant progressing.

 

Mandatory reporting. Justin Welby is now in support mandate of mandatory reporting. He spoke to Phil Johnson of MACSAS last Sunday at the Gen Synod and agrees it should be in place for regulated activities. For the church he agrees it should be a disciplinary sanction and the government will decide whether there should be a criminal sanction. John Sentamu also believes in mandatory reporting.

 

Questions from David Greenwood on behalf of core participants he represents.

 

Do bishops get an easy ride on discipline given that all but six of the complaints have been dismissed by Justin Welby ? Mr Welby explained that he had suspended a bishop. Mr Welby denies that he gives bishops and easy ride and says that he looks at the evidence with care.

 

He is not sure if he has the ability to overrule complaints being ruled out of time. He agrees that he will apologise to Mr Ineson. An apology of 5 July 2017 was read out. It was intended as an apology.

 

On external regulation as suggested by David Greenwood believes that it would require the dismantling of church bodies. If that would make the church work then it would have to be done but it would have to be the last resort in his opinion.

 

He was questioned on behalf of A4 and asked whether he knew about Tim Thornton’s management of a disclosure by A4 before he was appointed as the Bishop at Lambeth. Mr Welby did know about it and believed that it did not indicate that it would be unsafe on safeguarding.

 

He was questioned as to why he prevented a debate about the Blackburn letter at the recent Synod. Mr Welby said he did not wish to upset by IICSA.

 

In his closing remarks he maintains that he is concerned about difference and accountability. He believes that those things will have the biggest impact on safeguarding. He remained utterly horrified with the church failures but he believes there has been some small progress. He is looking forward to the Devamanikkam investigation and Smyth investigation. Abuse destroys lives and leaves deep wounds. He is sorry for every occasion that it happens.

 

He thought that he had apologised to Mr Ineson at the Nov 2016 meeting but he may not have done and he obviously did not communicate clearly enough. He is still ashamed of the church on safeguarding as it leaved a profound stain on everything else that the church does very well.

 

12th of July 2019.

 

David Bonehill and John Titchener of EIG Insurance.

 

These witnesses were questioned about the withdrawal of Pastoral support for A4. The inquiry had asked for legal professional privilege redactions to be removed. Mr Bonehill when first giving evidence on 2 July 2019 explained that the use of legal professional privilege in this case was to remain consistent with all other cases.

 

Counsel to the enquiry, Nikita McNeill mentioned recordings of conversations between a journalist and to public relations/communications people from EIG taken from 22nd, 28th and 30th of June 2016. Part of the recording of 30 June 2016 was played and showed that whilst EI G told the church support worker for A4 that contact with him should stop as legal letter of claim had been written, they explained that there had been the confusion in that they believed the advice from EIG had been asked regarding the claim only and not about his pastoral care or support.

 

As Mr Titchener acknowledged, the public relations people on the call were trying to manage the information to put EIG in a better light. Mr Titchener acknowledged that EIG had received the emails with the recordings in June in September 2017.

 

Nikita McNeill went on to explain that EIG disagreed with Ian Elliott’s report on the handling of A4’s case. EIG had disputed they had advised the withdrawal of support. The emails now disclosed to the enquiry show that this had taken place. EIG were accused of tampering the Inquiry’s factual investigation. Mr Titchener replied “is it is a source of deep regret that these documents were not disclosed sooner. Disclosing them sooner would probably have saved everyone’s time and effort”.

 

Nikita McNeill takes David Bonehill through emails between Sheryl Kent, the A4 support worker and Bishop Paul Butler along with Stephen Slack. Stephen Slack advised that contact should be withdrawn subject to the safeguarding professionals’ guidance. Paul Butler wanted to avoid withdrawing support and suggested that he speak to David Greenwood, A4’s solicitor. He thought it good practice to let A4’s lawyer know the basis of withdrawal of contact.

 

Further advice was taken from the EIG’s solicitor who confirmed that it is still possible to offer pastoral support during a claim. Sheryl Kent then asked for clarification from EIG themselves. EIG confirmed that there should be no contact. Nikita McNeill pressed David Bonehill to admit that his advice was not clear enough and that the advice could have been wider. On reflection he accepts that Ian Elliott’s report was accurate.

 

Closing submissions.

 

Ian O’Donnell on behalf of Slater and Gordon core participants.

 

He criticises individual decisions and mistakes highlighted by this investigation. He describes the clergy discipline measure as ineffective. He believes that practice is different from the written guidance in the church. He accuses the church of running down the clock. He supports mandatory reporting.

 

William Chapman (on behalf of MACSAS and other core participants).

 

His speech was as set out here.

 

IICSA Anglican Inquiry

Wider Church Investigation

Closing on behalf of MACSAS and AN-A1 to A6, Phil Johnson, Julie MacFarlane, Graham Sawyer and Rev Matthew Ineson

 

CLOSING ANGLICAN

  1. Chair, panel: we act for ten victims of Anglican clerical sexual abuse and the survivors’ support group MACSAS.

Welby’s apology

  1. May I deal with one matter immediately. Yesterday, the Archbishop of Canterbury flourished a letter he says he wrote to Mr Ineson in 2017. That letter was disclosed to the Inquiry yesterday and then, to us, shortly before you came in at 2 pm. Mr Ineson has not had a chance to respond to it. The Archbishop relied on the final paragraph of that letter to suggest he had given Mr Ineson an apology. Mr Ineson does not accept that. His objection is to the words ‘deeply sorry….from your description of how this has been dealt with by the Church’. I am not sure it is even grammatical. It is certainly mealy mouthed. It does not frankly accept the Church treated him badly.
  2. Yesterday was an opportunity for the Archbishop to give a full apology – in public and in Mr Ineson’s presence – for what the Archbishop accepted was the ‘shabby and shambolic’ way Mr Ineson was treated by the Church. He sat there, the most powerful man in the Church, and Mr Ineson, sat behind, waited and waited and waited – as he has been for years. That was more than just a discourtesy to Mr Ineson. The Archbishop still ‘doesn’t get it’.A national, independent regulator
  1. I turn to the main body of my submissions.
  2. The Anglican Church is the first of the major institutions to face a final reckoning in this Inquiry. The Anglican Investigation, with all its component parts, is a case study par excellence for why there must be:
  1. a national, state-sponsored, independent, regulator of the child-care sector;
  2. a corporate structure for those who want to care for children.
  1. It is why I wish in this address to:
  • suggest, tentatively, the beginnings of a more general theory of institutional abuse, to help answer the question: Which institutions pose the greatest risk to children?
  1. Explain why, if the theory is correct, there is a need for a national, state-sponsored, independent regulator of the child-care sector.
  1. This is not to replace the Church’s own steps to regulate itself. It is on top of that. Our essential point is: we do not care about the peculiarities of your byzantine institution comprised of 42 medieval fiefdoms, governed by centuries old Canon Law. You fix that if you can. It is your responsibility in every parish and every diocese. But you will comply with minimum standards set by a national regulator that apply to every registered institution that cares for children. No special pleading.
  2. What must not happen – and what we say would be a fools’ errand for you – is to attempt to make specific recommendations for each of the immensely complicated organisations you have to consider. Extensive though this inquiry is, you are still only considering a few institutions. What about all those institutions you will not be able to scrutinize?
  3. The regulator must be completely independent and, just as importantly, be seen to be independent.
  4. We first suggested a national, independent, regulator of the child-care sector at the conclusion of the Downside/Ampleforth case study in December 2017. At the time, it seemed a bold submission. It no longer seems a recommendation of the best, but one of absolute necessity.
  5. Others were content to limit their recommendation to mandatory reporting. The evidence has moved on. Even the Archbishops of Canterbury and York now accept mandatory reporting is a ‘no-brainer’.
  6. No change
  1. I will not, with great respect to the Survivors of clerical abuse – particularly those who have given evidence before you, some without anonymity – be dwelling on the litany of abuse, failed safeguarding and cover-up that you identified in your report into Chichester and Peter Ball and have heard yet more in this strand. All I will say, is that the evidence confirms that, despite the Church being anxious to be on best-behaviour in front of this Inquiry, the problems persist:
  1. An Archbishop of York who tells you that the ‘Voices of the abused must be heard” but takes advantage of a 1 year limitation period under the CDM against Mr Ineson.
  2. The same Archbishop who, only a few weeks ago, ordained his wife without, exceptionally, the very training he says is so badly needed. At the very least, he did not stop to think how this might be perceived as an abuse of power.
  3. A priest, AN-X7, who refused to accept it was wrong in principle for a convicted child-abuser to be on the parochial church council.
  4. And how the Church and its principal insurer EIG act together to deny pastoral support to victims and, before this Inquiry, refuse to disclose the privileged material that would reveal if they are telling the truth about it. And this is the insurer who is widely regarded as the most benevolent of the insurers claimants face in litigation.
  5. You have heard the same defensive narrative we have heard elsewhere:
    1. We did not know;
    2. We forgot we were told;
  • I was only cc’d to the correspondence;
  1. If we were told, we could not believe it;
  2. We need more training and policies;
  3. The past is a foreign country. You are judging the past by the standards of today.
  • Give us time.
  1. They did know. They were told. They did believe it. They had training and policies galore. Child abuse is and always has been regarded as a grave crime. They have had so much time.
  • You will recall in the Downside inquiry how in 1972 the headmaster of Downside did what he was supposed to do with great alacrity when he discovered abuse: sacked the priest, informed the statutory authority and recommended defrocking to the Holy See.
  1. And we heard from the older cleric Rev Christopher Watkins and how he dealt with a safeguarding problem in his Welsh parish perfectly correctly with limited training and resources.
  2. The past is not a foreign country. Progress is not always linear. Institutions, like Empires, decline and fall.
  1. The real risk is that once the heat of this Inquiry dies, the institution – whether it be the Anglican Church or the Catholic Church – revert to type or progress so slowly we have to wait a generation. It will not be sufficient to pass one or two laws that require mandatory reporting or extend position of trust offences. Laws ossify. Only look at Canon Law. You need a regulator that is continually applying the heat with guidance that changes dynamically as we better understand through experience what works and what doesn’t.
  2. Which institutions pose the greatest risk to children?
  1. I said I would to try to identify more general factors that identify high risk institutions.
  2. These are:
  1. Large institutions;
    1. Large institutions cannot change their culture and practice quickly.
        1. The Church has a presence in virtually every locality in the country from small hamlets to the major cities.
        2. But it is also international. Archbishop Welby was at pains to explain in his statement that the Anglican Communion extends from the hill tribes in Papua New Guinea to New York City. And that the average congregant is ‘a woman in her 30s who lives on less than $4 a day…in an area of conflict’. The Church has to please everyone. And in doing so it pleases no one.
        3. We heard how it took 5 years for the Church to consider the Seal of the Confessional only to decide to do nothing – despite some of its most senior members like the Archbishop of York agreeing that an absolute Seal was unjustifiable.
        4. Bishop Sowerby was keen to emphasise that the new generation of ordinands were ‘open to safeguarding and all that it contains’. As if we should accept that cultural change may take a generation.
  1. Powerful institutions
    • Powerful institutions can shelter and protect themselves by friends in high places. We heard how that worked in the Peter Ball investigation.
  2. Institutions that organise themselves in a diffuse, Loose way, with a high degree of autonomy at the local level;
    • The life of a priest in the parish and the Bishop in the Diocese is largely his own to organise: unsupervised, unshackled, unregulated.
  3. Where there is a powerful Ethos that binds members to each other and inhibits external scrutiny.
    • How does such a large, loosely supervised organisation maintain its organisation? By a powerful ethos supported by doctrine that binds members together. You expressed surprise that an organisation with an explicit moral purpose could do such wrong. In fact, it is no surprise. The express moral purpose becomes a cover [ACE0267757]. People defer to ‘good’ people.
  1. The institution is dependent on a “clean” reputation and in which members know each other and live in the same communities the imperative to hide dirty linen is strong. This is true for most organisations looking after children. Reputations are strongly defended. A tarnished reputation is an existential threat. Only outside regulators can bring objectivity.
  1. Where that Ethos is not consonant with accepted standards of child safeguarding. For example:
    • the absolute Seal of the Confessional is not consonant with accepted standards of child safeguardings.
  1. Concept of forgiveness and its misguided consequences when perpetrators are forgiven and allowed to continue to pose a risk to children, e.g. Bishop Forster and the child pornography case.
  1. Led by those who are ultimately only accountable to themselves.
    • Still, the Bishop is the ultimate decision-maker on child safety discipline. I think I am right in saying that all external commentators on the Church called for an end to the ‘Church marking its own homework’.
  2. Who have ample access to children.
    • We know the Church is the largest provider of voluntary services to children after the State.
  1. We suggest this analysis assists you in understanding why:
  • The Anglican Church is a high-risk institution.
  1. The Anglican Church, is unlikely to be effective in regulating itself to protect children.
  2. If you consider the response by the Church in Wales, it has performed better and moved more swiftly. It is smaller. Safeguarding and discipline is more centrally organised. It is less powerful: it is not established, it is disestablished.
  1. You have published your report about Chichester and Peter Ball in May. You identified key features of the Anglican Church that led to those terrible cases:
  • The prioritisation of reputation over the protection of children;
  1. Deep-seated arrogance;
  2. Clericalism and tribalism.
  1. In the course of this hearing, you have looked in more detail at specific issues such as:
  • Church structures;
  1. Disciplinary processes;
  2. Cultural change.
  1.  We would add:
  • The size of the Anglican Church.
  1. Its established position at the heart of our constitution.
  1. All of those things have played their part and, so long as there is a Church of England, will always play their part. It is the nature of the beast: what makes it good in many ways, also creates the very high risk it poses to children.
  2. Going beyond the reasons why
  1. We need to go beyond the reasons why. No doubt, for devotees of the CofE and history buffs, the causes of this institutional sclerosis are fascinating.
  2. For the victims of abuse, it is stomach churning.
  1. It is of no interest to them why the Anglican Church has failed.
  2. It is of no interest to them to hear the Archbishop quote the Bible, recite platitudes or even weep in sorrow.
  3. It is of no interest to them to debate the theological arguments surrounding the Seal of the Confessional.
  4. We drown in a sea of platitudes and an alphabet-soup (DSAs, ISVAs, NST, DSA, ADSA.) of child-safety acronyms that even the witnesses and Ms Scolding struggled to articulate with confidence.
  1. It is, I suggest, of limited relevance to you. The purpose of analysing why the Church failed is not for you to make recommendations about how it might improve matters by doing this, or that. It is to confirm in your own mind that the Church really has failed for reasons that are inherent to its very nature will not change without external, truly independent, state regulation.
  2. Because all decent people – victims or not, Anglicans or not –  simply want all reasonably practicable measures to be taken to make it stop. That is the acid-test we require in our Health & Safety legislation. It is the acid-test that only state-regulation can provide for child-protection. How the Church meets these minimum standards is up to them. Do not, we beg you, get sucked into making specific recommendations about how this byzantine institution goes about meeting those standards: it is up to them and whatever guidance the regulator gives. If they fail, they face the regulatory consequences, like everybody else.
  3. There is nothing special about the CofE. It is no answer to a factory in breach of health & safety regulations that it is special because it a) makes specialist aircraft parts, b) believes this, that and the other, c) and arranges its management structure in a peculiar way. It is irrelevant.
  4. So much of this is institutional special pleading. When the Archbishop of Canterbury objects to our proposal because it would mean radical change, the sub-text is this: We are special, We are too big too fail. The answer is: you are not special and you may be too big to succeed. But if you are saying, we may not be able to meet minimum standards, therefore they pose an existential threat: you are right and so it should be.
  5. You must bend to the needs of the community like everyone else. The Seal of the Sacrament is a good example: we are not interested in a theological debate about the pros and cons of the Seal and its limited exception dating back to 1603. The rule is, you report abuse to the statutory authorities however you learn of it.We are in favour of Mandatory Reporting in the form as advocated by the pressure group Mandate Now.
  6. The Regulator
  7. Mandatory Reporting
  1. We have always said we envisaged a child-safety regulator as a statutory body akin to the the Health & Safety Executive (‘HSE’). The history of the HSE is a long one: the first of the so-called Factory Acts was in 1803. They were enacted to protect children from exploitation in the cotton mills. Having heard the evidence in this Inquiry we say it is remarkable that in 2019, no such similar body exists for the protection of children from sexual and physical abuse.
  2. Features of this regulator are designed to catch all children looked after by organisations.
  1. The regulator will cover all organisations which look after children. Very small groups such as childminders are regulated by ofsted. Consideration will be given to exempting such small organisations.
  2. The independent statutory body would enforce basic standards of safeguarding. To do this the statutory body would establish:
    1. A Register of Institutions fit to look after children. To be considered fit and join the register the institution would have to satisfy basic safety criteria.
    2. It would be an offence to look after children without being on the Register.
  • To be on the Register the institution will have to introduce a corporate structure. This will enable accountability.

 

      1. The registered institution should be forced to adhere to the minimum standards of safeguarding of those in its care.

 

    1. The independent body would have the power to prosecute organisations for breaches of regulations. Fines would be imposed for breaches. Organisations could be prevented from working with children. Sanction could include safeguarding agreements or their equivalent not just for individuals but for corporations.

 

    1. All complaints would be passed from the regulated institution to this independent body by any receiving institution with a criminal sanction for failing to do so.

 

    1. The body would require a detailed report on the complaint to satisfy the body that its investigation adheres to minimum standards. The body would have the power to gather information from complainants, regulated institutions and third parties and would take over the handling of cases where there was significant concern. It would have the power to compel disclosure of material.

 

    1. The body would liaise with and assist civil authorities such as the Police and Social Services. The body would ensure that police and other statutory organisations are taking appropriate action within reasonable timescale.

 

    1. Where an allegation has been made the body would investigate complaints using a “balance of probabilities” standard of proof.  There would be no statute of limitations under this scheme. The independent body would have the power to make awards of compensation similar to the CICA. It would have the power to decide on the support to be offered to a complainant and a scheme would be established to provide adequate compensation taking into account the effects on quality of life and a series of factors.

 

    1. Complainants will be allowed to take advice from lawyers and a contribution to legal costs would be awarded.

 

    1. The cost of the body’s work would be paid from a levy on institutions and those culpable would pay for the costs of dealing with individual cases in which they are involved.

 

WILLIAM CHAPMAN

DAVID GREENWOOD

JULY 2019

 

 

 

Nigel Giffin QC (archbishops Council).

 

In a brief speech he believes that progress of the church will continue. He will make written submissions later.

 

Mr Powell (Church in Wales).

 

He believes that 18 people are on the register in Wales 10 of those have committed sexual offences. He will send in written submissions later.

 

Rory Phillips (EIG) 

 

He explains that the AIG is widely accepted as being a cooperative insurer and that the four individuals who have criticised it at this enquiry make the criticisms because of the adversarial nature of civil justice and that there expectation is higher than what EIG as an insurer can deliver. They expect a benevolent church response to get a legalistic insurer response.

 

He regrets the misunderstanding in relation to talk the advice on withdrawal of support for A4.

 

Mr Berry (national police chief’s Counsel).

 

He believes the church should follow five mantras. One. Strong recruitment. Two. Adequate risk assessments where known offenders attend church. Three. Ensure concerns are escalated without delay. Four – concerns about criminality are passed promptly to the police. Five. Embedding of safeguarding it in the DNA of the church.

 

Fiona scolding QC (lead counsel to the enquiry).

 

Thanks all witnesses and core participants.

 

Professor Alexis Jay.

 

She thanks all core participant witnesses. The report into the Anglican Church will be published in summer 2020.

 

End.

 

[1] ACE026363

[2] ANG000584

[3] ANG000364

IICSA Anglican Inquiry 2nd -12th July 2019 – David Greenwood opening statement

IICSA Anglican Inquiry

Wider Church Investigation

Opening on behalf of MACSAS and AN-A1 to A6, Phil Johnson, Julie MacFarlane, Graham Sawyer and Rev Matthew Ineson

 

  1. The Anglican Church can be a force for good. It creates communities. It can help those in need. There are very many worthy people doing much good, but from a safeguarding perspective the Anglican Church presents us with a huge unregulated area of activity. It is a magnet for the vulnerable. It draws in children to youth groups, choirs and for spiritual guidance.
  2. We have seen through previous investigations in Chichester and Peter Ball that it is a place where paedophiles have good reason to feel safe.
  3. I will not dwell on the obvious problem of the church’s web-like structure. I have advocated a more corporate structure will bring accountability, fines and the enforced raising of standards. At present we have Bishops as the final arbiters on safeguarding responses. This brings inconsistency and the temptation to protect individual and the organisation’s reputation. We must find a way to break this dangerous safeguarding structure.
  4. The Church has tried to plug the holes exposed by the Chichester Inquiry. It has introduced many detailed responses some of which are an improvement but as we will see from the evidence of Jo Kind of MACSAS they are inadequate and a smoke screen to get through the current scrutiny.
  5. The Gen Synod document GS2092[1] is a report by the National safeguarding steering group of 2018. Its reference is ACE026363. It recommends that clergy, lay readers, churchwardens, and PCCs have “due regard” for guidance issued by the House of Bishops. This phraseology is inadequate. Only the mandatory referral externally would be acceptable to MACSAS.
  6. On changes to the clergy discipline measure, the church is “considering external scrutiny”. This obfuscatory language demonstrates an unwillingness to change unless forced to do so by legislation. Again here independence is needed to enforce dismissals, fines and awards of compensation. Cultural change will only come about through the enforcement of tough penalties.
  7. The GS2092 document argues that independent oversight would mean the church contracting out of its responsibilities. In fact what happen if independence is not introduced is that once the heat of IICSA scrutiny and potential legislation dies down the church will revert to type. It will continue to deal with issues quietly and internally. This is what organisations with reputations to protect do.
  8. All the measures announced fail to deliver true independence or mandatory reporting. If a bishop wishes to avoid reporting to the police or social services he or she can still legally do so even after the introduction of the new proposed initiative. Bishops are hopelessly conflicted in their duties. On one hand, they have the good name of their dioceses and staff to protect. On the other, they are tasked with responding well to allegations of abuse. The proposed ombudsman service is a figleaf. It would only covered those persistent and strong enough to complain about the poor handling they have already endured. It is clear that the church is unwilling to commit to independence.
  9. The National safeguarding steering group ACE026363 proposal uses vague wording such as agreeing to “develop and analyse options: develop proposals: consider findings: commission a working group: and undertake an analysis”. There is no commitment by the church to relinquish control of responses to safeguarding concerns. This is deliberate behaviour. The church is trying to buy time until IICSA goes away. MACSAS is not going away and I hope the IICSA recommendations will be very forceful.
  10. Until true independence is established there remains a concern that the National safeguarding team has insufficient power to intervene where poor safeguarding compliance exists. It is not clear whether bishops, Deans and Archbishops can prevent the National safeguarding team having access to documents and staff within their organisations and only the establishment of a truly independent body to manage church safeguarding operations, established through legislation can ensure proper oversight. Church officeholders and employees are a fairly small and close-knit community. As your hearings have so far demonstrated, bonds of loyalty to each other and the organisation are strong and can easily override official policy. Only external independent decision-makers can avoid this real risk.
  11. I should share with you the comment from a core participant who commented that the tears shed by Justin Welby in his first appearance here were not tears of shame but were tears arising from the realisation that his organisation and his office has been found to have failed. It has placed too much emphasis on protecting clergy and bishops and has allowed children to go unprotected. They were tears at being caught out. The core participant told me it is actually the church that should be ashamed of the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. We have seen how George Carey felt a compulsion to protect one of his bishops. We know that David Hope protected Robert Waddington. There is evidence that Bishops continue to be protected by Mr Welby.
  12. On internal discipline the Clergy Disciplinary Measure procedure must surely be another embarrassment for the church. Its ludicrous rules have led to complaints being timed out after a year and many claims being dismissed or decisions to take no action taken all without independent scrutiny. What kind of discipline measure has impenetrable rules, allows an alleged perpetrator to comment on whether a case can be considered out of time, and (as per the CDM 2018 report attests only 90 complaints covering over 20,000 members). The CDM summary report tells us that most of the 90 were either dismissed by the Bishop, had no action taken or a penalty by consent imposed. Only 7 reached consideration by the President of Tribunals. Only four were dismissed from office (these came after criminal conviction). It bears no relation to most employer/ employee disciplinary codes.
  13. Interestingly, 24 complaints were made against Bishops. All apart from the 6 still outstanding were dismissed or no action taken by Messrs Welby and Sentamu.
  14. We will hear from Matthew Ineson[2] in week two about his appalling treatment by Bishops which prompted Mr Welby to take no action despite a catalogue of inaction and lies. It seems Mr Welby is continuing in Mr Carey’s footsteps by protecting his Bishops.
  15. We now know that the church has regular business meetings to manage its reputational risk. Discreditting Matthew Ineson has been discussed. We also know the church is convinced it can resist any recommendations IICSA may have to introduce independence into the safeguarding process. When it comes to safeguarding this is a thoroughly disreputable organisation which cannot be trusted.
  16. We will hear today from AN-A4[3] about how he tried to tell literally dozens of senior church people over 3 decades and was not taken seriously. Some have forgotten his disclosure. Some have not. He complains of the withdrawal of counselling as soon as a civil claim was intimated. A core group was established without his knowledge and without him being invited to attend. It discussed damage limitation rather than his welfare. He is concerned at a conflict of interest between the church insurer and the church which has staffed its board.
  17. On the subject of the past cases review we will hear from Roger Singleton who is rightly critical of the woefully inadequate terms of reference and treatment of the data. The review resulted in the church declaring it had a clean bill of health when nothing could have been further from the truth. The church treated us all like children. It lied to us and it lied to the children and their parents who put their trust in the church. It put them at unacceptable risk and until the Past Cases Review is re-run with an in depth analysis children are still at risk in this church.
  18. For all these reasons I ask the panel to find that a) the Anglican Church is unable to effectively respond to child sexual abuse risks,b) Legislation is required to
  19. i) enact mandatory reporting.  .
  20. ii) create an independent statutory body to enforce basic standards of safeguarding. This statutory body would establish:
    1. A Register of Institutions fit to look after children.
    2. It would be an offence to look after children without being on the Register.
    3. To be on the Register the institution will have to introduce a corporate structure.
    4. The registered institution should be forced to adhere to the minimum standards of safeguarding regulation.
    5. The independent body would have the power to prosecute organisations for breaches of regulations. Fines would be imposed for breaches. Organisations could be prevented from working with children.
    6. All complaints would be passed to this independent body by any receiving institution with a criminal sanction for failing to do so.
    7. The body would gather information from complainants, regulated institutions and third parties. It would have the power to compel disclosure of material.
    8. The body would liaise with and assist civil authorities such as the Police and Social Services. The body would ensure that police and other statutory organisations are taking appropriate action within reasonable timescale.
    9. The body would investigate complaints using a “balance of probabilities” standard of proof.  There would be no statute of limitations under this scheme. The independent body would have the power to make awards of compensation similar to the CICA. It would have the power to decide on the support to be offered to a complainant and a scheme would be established to provide adequate compensation taking into account the effects on quality of life and a series of factors.
    10. Complainants will be allowed to take advice from lawyers and a contribution to legal costs would be awarded.
    11. The cost of the body’s work would be paid from a levy on institutions and those culpable would pay for the costs of dealing with individual cases in which they are involved.

David Greenwood

28th June 2019

[1] ACE026363

[2] ANG000584

[3] ANG000364

2019 General Synod safeguarding protest

Rev Matthew Ineson and David Greenwood staged a protest outside York Minster to highlight Church of England Safeguarding failures.

250 leaflets with the call for independence in safeguarding decisions were handed to the congregation of the Sunday morning General Synod service. Many positive conversations were had with Synod members and other clergy.

A surprise guest, Taliulah (Matthew’s pet dog), provided moral support.

The impetus for change is growing from within the church and it is hoped that the church will respect IICSA Inquiry recommendations which are likely to require independent oversight in one form or another.

David Greenwood

7th July 2019

LONG AWAITED DECISION ON SOCIAL SERVICES NEGLIGENCE

LONG AWAITED DECISION ON SOCIAL SERVICES NEGLIGENCE

(This applies to Exploitation and “failure to remove” cases).

Since December 2017 we have been waiting for the most senior judges in England to decide whether councils can be held liable for negligent social workers. Hundreds of claimants across the country were fearful that judges could have given councils immunity from having to compensate children for failures.

The case is called Poole Borough Council v GN [2019] UKSC 25

In a decision announced yesterday (6th June 2019) common sense prevailed.

The judges decided that where experts offer their skills to the public but provide a negligent service their employers can be held responsible. This will apply to social workers working for the council who investigate and make decisions on how best to keep children safe.

This will apply especially to children (a vulnerable group) who are affected by social work decisions. Failed care cases Where social workers become involved with a family they are expected to exercise reasonable skill and care to protect them from harm. That is the job and specialism of a social worker. The case says at paragraph 80: “..a public body which offers a service to the public often assumes a responsibility to those using the service. The assumption of responsibility is an undertaking that reasonable care will be taken, either express or more commonly implied, usually from the reasonable foreseeability of reliance on the exercise of such care”.

Children impliedly entrust their welfare to professionals looking after them.

My view is that there has been an assumption of responsibility in all cases where social workers have had more than a minimal involvement with a child. The Rotherham and Oxford exploitation cases provide stark examples of the failure of professionals at all levels. This case allows those affected to claim redress.

David Greenwood and the child abuse team at Switalskis Solicitors represent survivors of child abuse due to social work mistakes, including failures to protect from sexual exploitation and grooming. They have extensive experience in helping those who have been affected by child abuse to achieve justice.

If you were a victim of child abuse and would like confidential advice, please contact David Greenwood, Bev Mercer, Sally Smith or Amy Clowrey on 0800 138 4700 or by e mail at david.greenwood@switalskis.com

Catholic Ealing Abbey Investigation closing submissions

IICSA Roman Catholic Investigation Ealing Abbey Investigation Closing statement by David Greenwood on behalf of RC-A31, RC-A32, RC-A33, C17, C18 and C19

The question

1. Chair, you posed a question to Mr Turner, the Diocesan safeguarding officer: a. “Why had all this occurred within the monastery and the diocese?”

2. How could so few people – a dozen or so monks – cause so much trouble?

That is the fundamental question. The answer determines what must be done.

The wrong answer

3. Let me first reject the answer Mr Turner and others gave. He suggested all this had occurred because opportunities to commit child abuse arose because of inadequate procedures.

4. He is wrong. There was no lack of procedure or want of knowledge of child safeguarding. Or, if there was, it was not the cause of the problem.

a. Ealing Abbey had received clear, unequivocal advice, from its solicitors from as early as 1993.

b. Abbot Shipperlee was involved with implementing Nolan from its inception. He was part of its working committee.

c. This was a man who said, in effect, he became so familiar with safeguarding that he was bored with the training.

d. You will remember in the Downside case how the headmaster, Father Aelred Watkin, acted quickly to involve the statutory authorities as long ago as 1970.

e. It is not difficult to keep records. It is not difficult to promulgate a covenant of care in the monastery. It is not difficult to pass complaints to the statutory authorities. It is not difficult to assist the police with their inquiries. It is not difficult to give full and frank disclosure to the school inspector and Charity Commission.

f. It is not difficult if the will is there. But the will was not there.

The right answer

5. Why were these holy men so unwilling? The answer to your question is hiding in plain sight. It is what the Benedictines have themselves told you. It is what they believe. Their beliefs are simply incompatible with the welfare of the child being paramount: incompatible in principle; incompatible in practice.

6. It not that the Benedictines wish harm upon children. It is that when there is a conflict between their beliefs and harm to children, their beliefs are paramount.

a. The first duty of the Abbot is to his monks, according to the Rule of St Benedict.

b. That is why Abbot Shipperlee accepted he might well have said about David Pearce, “What can I do? He’s my friend.”

c. That is why Abbot Shipperlee said about Soper, ‘I couldn’t believe the complaint. I had a very high regard for my predecessor’ rather than trust to an investigation.

d. It is why Abbot Yeo told you, “My concern was, above all, how is the community going to get out of this mess?” rather than investigate the rumours of abuse that were running rife in Ealing Abbey.

e. It is why a pupil at the school was allowed to work in the monastery and become a further victim of David Pearce.

f. It is why David Pearce, since his release from prison, lives in a flat paid for out of the Abbey’s charitable funds.

g. It is demonstrated by the baleful influence the monks had over Mr Cleugh. What else could explain Mr Cleugh’s lack of candour with the school inspector and charity commission? What else could explain his talk at prize-giving of an anti-Catholic conspiracy? What else could explain a safeguarding policy as late as 2009 that set such a high bar to reporting complaints to the police?

h. The EBC themselves acknowledge the possibility that what they believe may be incompatible with the paramountcy principle. They themselves are sponsoring a conference which will explore how elements of Catholic culture (including theology) might enable abusive behaviour.

7. That is why I say the answer is in plain sight. This is all what the Benedictines themselves have admitted to you that reflect their beliefs today. Their beliefs have not changed. They will not change. It has nothing to do with the knowledge and experience of safeguarding policies. It is to do with the very nature of the institution itself. Unless the nature of the institution itself changes, the risk to any children in their care will continue because children’s welfare will not be paramount.

8. If that is right, it is no answer to point to improvements in safeguarding or to the division between school and monastery that followed Carlile. The baleful influence of the monks and the school will persist so long as there is any connection at all. Mr Cleugh’s loyalties were only too plain. He remained in post until August 2016. Abbot Shipperlee is still the Abbot. The implication

9. The failure to recognise why this institution was, and remains, a particular risk to children is an important part of the explanation for the failure of the statutory authorities to remedy the problem at Ealing swiftly.

10. The regulatory approach is one that focuses on individuals and policies. The regulators do not ask themselves, is the belief-system of this institution compatible with child safeguarding? Nor are their statutory powers and duties aligned to dealing with that question.

a. The police’s chief task is to investigate criminal offences of individuals.

b. The CPS’s chief task is to prosecute criminal offences of individuals.

i. Both might be criticised for superficial investigations and charging decisions. But we accept that it is not their job to ensure safeguarding.

ii. Good example of how CPS not set up to deal with institutions: can’t even search the database for Ealing Abbey.

c. The Charity Commission’s chief task is to ensure Trustees are acting ‘exclusively in the charity’s best interests and managing its assets and resources prudently, which includes to avoid exposing the charity’s assets, beneficiaries or reputation to undue risk’. There is obviously the potential for conflict there between there competing objectives. It may not be in the charity’s interests to expose child abuse in its midst.

d. Penny Jones makes it clear in her statement that the DfE lacked the power to require Ealing to remove abusive monks from the Abbey. There was an appeal by the Minister of State for Schools for the Charity Commission to use its powers instead. “We had no means of requiring proprietors to make changes that would tackle the deep-rooted attitudes which underpinned poor safeguarding practice,” paragraph 61. . Penny Jones’ statement is very important. She has not been called and her statement has not been read into the record. We ask that she is called to give evidence at the Residential Schools investigation.

11. None of these statutory bodies has both the paramountcy principle as its key objective or the power to enforce it. It is on the face of it extraordinary that DfE should have to beg the Charity Commission to use its powers to achieve what it wanted.

12. The lack of cooperation and information sharing between the various statutory bodies was also appalling. Penny Jones writes how, INQ003857 para 58: LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer) was unaware of the Charity Commission Investigation. The Charity Commission did not inform DfE or ISI (Independent Schools Inspectorate) of its inquiries. DfE had to request ISI to gather relevant information using its powers. In the end it was only the sheer tenacity of a civic minded Jonathan West that brought the relevant information to the attention of all the statutory bodies. It is hardly surprising in those circumstances that Ealing Abbey was able to mislead and cover-up for so long.

13. The confused mosaic of powers and objectives of the various statutory bodies involved with Ealing is powerful support for the creation of an HSE type-body dedicated to the enforcement of minimum child-safeguarding standards for registered institutions of a given size. Consistent with children’s welfare being paramount its directives must take precedence over all others. Its power would include: . To prosecute and fine for breaches of safeguarding legislation including a failure to report suspected abuse by the institution and by individuals; a. To order disclosure of records; b. Referral to the Charity Commission to consider charitable status and/or the suitability of trustees; c. Enforcement notices; d. A statutory requirement to take into account the espoused beliefs of the institution and the historical record of institutions with those espoused beliefs.

14. RC-8 was surely not wrong when he estimated hundreds of victims over the years, just at Ealing. A new regulator will be expensive. But it would be a false economy and unjust not to have it.

15. It is time someone said: ‘This is not rotten apples, it’s a rotten institution. This is not simply a conflict of interest between the Abbot and his monks, but a conflict of interest between the Order of St Benedict and the welfare of children. These people are not willing to do what is necessary to safeguard children because that is not their paramount belief. They believe in something different.” Time to tell the Emperor, he has no clothes. Let us not leave it to Jonathan West to put the world to rights.

Ealing Abbey Evidence Summary 8th Feb 2019

Read the summary by clicking the download button

IICSA Ealing Abbey/ St Benedicts Inquiry 4th Feb 2019 Opening remarks

I appear on behalf of RC-A31, RC-A32, RC-A33, C17, C18 and C19 all of whom were variously harmed by Roman Catholic priests. C18 and C19 were specifically harmed by members of the English Benedictine Order.

2. You have already reported on Downside and Ampleforth. In your executive summary you concluded by quoting David Molesworth, safeguarding specialist, who said “I do not believe currently that the organisation as a whole understands or accepts their responsibilities for child protection issues….We appear to be dealing with denial or downright obstruction.” We anticipate that the evidence in relation to Ealing will only reinforce the strength of that view.

3. If there is a significant difference with Ealing it is this. At Ealing, the sexual abuse was perpetrated by those at the very top of the organisation. a. David Pearce: Prior, Head of the Junior School and Bursar. b. Laurence Soper: Bursar of St Benedicts, Prior, Headmaster, Abbot and Bursar of the General Benedict Conference.

4. Both, eventually, were sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment for abuse of children in their care. We have read how Soper, knowing himself to be a child-abuser, handled the first complaints against Pearce. We have read how when the authorities placed Soper on bail, he fled from Rome to the Balkans with half-a-million euros in his bank account.

5. You are asked by the Benedictine witnesses involved with Ealing to accept that, in this closed community, they had no grounds for suspecting their brethren until it was obvious even to those outside their closed community. We reject that as incredible. The Benedictines did no more in responding to child abuse in their midst than events forced them to do. This is not a case of rotten apples, but a rotten institution.

6. In our view as long as the EBC is engaged in the care and education of children the EBC poses an unacceptable risk to children. This raises a wider question of the extent to which faith-based education is conducive to the safety of children. The EBC themselves acknowledge this possibility by sponsoring a conference which explored how elements of Catholic culture (including theology) might enable abusive behaviour. We have emphasized the impediments to self-governance presented by: • Catholic Teaching, Canon Law and the Rule of St Benedict • The EBC’s hierarchical structure • Its Culture, and • It’s Unincorporated status

7. We have previously recommended, in summary: a.

● The creation of a law to embody mandatory reporting as advocated by the knowledgeable pressure group mandate now.

● The creation of a new statutory body with powers to police and enforce basic standards of child protection. We envisage a body similar to the Health and Safety Executive.

● Significantly we have previously recommended a review of the powers of the Charity Commission. We are concerned through reading the materials disclosed during this investigation that there have in our view been significant individual and systematic failings by the Charity Commission and the Department for Education.

8. It appears from the relevant legislation that the Charities Commission has the power to revoke the charitable status of an institution, including schools. Charitable status confers upon the institution significant prestige and tax advantages. It is a matter of public concern that institutions that have proved safe havens for paedophiles should receive, in effect, a public subsidy to teach children. The removal, or threat of removal, of charitable status would be a powerful incentive to comply with safeguarding.

9. In assessing public benefit the Commission’s own guidance is that ‘benefits must be balanced against any detriment or harm’2. We are interested to learn whether charitable status has ever been revoked by the Commission and the threshold tests for decision makers. If not in cases like this, then when?

10. We are still to learn the detail of what sanctions have been imposed on the trusts running the schools at Ampleforth, Downside and Ealing.

11. It is not clear to us that the tests applied to determine charitable status (“public benefit tests”) are satisfied by religious institutions whose record and approach to safeguarding has and remains lamentable. The assessment of these schools presently appears to have been avoided. Jonathan West probed the Charities Commission, the ISI and the Department for Education significantly from 2009 and has had unsatisfactory responses. We hope to explore these issues during this hearing.

12. The independent Schools Inspectorate failed to uncover significant offending by EBC members at St Benedict’s between its inspections in 2003 and 2009. These offences were withheld from their inspectors during their 2009 inspection. Despite this being reported to them by Jonathan West no sanctions were imposed. We have to ask why were no sanctions imposed ? Why did the ISI and the Department for Education consider the senior staff at St Benedict’s should remain in post. It has been suggested that the only sanction is to deregulated the school and force its complete closure.

I hope that this Inquiry will explore the various sanctions which the charities commission and the Department for Education can impose and how decisions are made. It appears to us that either new powers or more rigorous enforcement of existing ones is needed. ————————————————————————————————————————–

Dewsbury CSE arrests

My home town of Dewsbury is in the news again for the wrong reasons. A few years ago we had the Shannon Matthews mother/ daughter “kidnap” incident. The Guardian today reports that West Yorkshire Police have made 55 arrests in recent weeks arising from Child Sexual Exploitation. This follows recent police arrests in Bradford and Huddersfield. I am really pleased that the Inspector in charge of the operation has made this his top priority. It needs to be the top priority. It ruins the lives of girls involved. It removes self-confidence. It ruins aspirations. It takes away career prospects. It scars families. I have seen it played out over and over again in my work in Rotherham.

The police are only now paying sufficient attention to this serious crime. I am sorry to have to say that the police have contributed to enabling the crime to take place. They turned a blind eye in years gone by. They may have been ignorant to the crime that was happening before their eyes. They should have been more alert. I remember as a teenager studying girls and men “flirting” on a street in Dewsbury Town Centre known as the Long Causeway. There was a taxi rank there. It was plain to see that what was happening was likely end in unlawful sexual activity. I assumed the police would have been dealing with it. We now know they weren’t.

I wish the police the very best in these prosecutions but the girls affected have the right to examine whether their abuse could have been prevented. My team specialises in helping survivors of abuse and can give free confidential advice. We have female solicitors able to help anyone affected. Ask for David Greenwood, Sally Smith, Bev Mercer or Amy Clowrey – tel 01924 882000 or e mail david.greenwood@switalskis.com

IICSA Accountability and Reparations Inquiry Draft Redress Scheme by David Greenwood

IICSA Accountability and Reparations Inquiry – evidence summary

INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE Accountability and Reparations Hearing 26th November 2018 to 14th December 2018 Summary of Evidence by David Greenwood 26th November 2018

Opening address by Professor Alexis Jay.

Peter Skelton

It is said that child sex abuse cases are an exception from other cases as children are extremely vulnerable and abuse is a crime. The four case studies are as follows:- North Wales We will hear from four Complainants, North Wales Police, Bilhar Uppal (Claimant Solicitor), Alistair Gillespie (Defendant Solicitor), Edward Faulkes (Barrister for Defendants) and Rob Luck (MMI). Forde Park (Devon) Closed 1985. Police investigated via Operation Lentisk. Civil claims were completed in 2001. We will hear from four Complainants, Devon and Cornwall Police, Emily Willoughby (Council) and Penny Ailes (Claimant Solicitor). St Leonard’s (Hornchurch, Essex) Operation Harnoon in 1995 resulted in no convictions. Operation Mapperton in 1998-2000 resulted in two convictions and then another in 2017. Civil claims ran between 2001 and 2005. All were settled by agreement. This could be suggested as a good resolution. We will hear from Complainant, Paul Connelly, from A87 and F42, a solicitor for the Council, a police officer and Malcolm Johnson and Tracey Storey (Claimant Solicitor) and from Sarah Erwin Jones (Defendant Solicitor). St Vincent’s and St Aidan’s This was a home I Cheshire run by Nugent Care and insured by RSA. Operation Emily resulted in perpetrators being convicted. Operations Van Gough and Operation Care resulted in two convictions. In 1997 a group was initiated which took 10 years to complete. Limitation was highly contentious, going through the courts numerous times. We will hear from two Complainants, Cheshire and Merseyside Police, Peter Garsden and Paul Durkin (Claimant Solicitors), Steven Belllingham (RSA Executive) and Caroline McKenzie (also RSA Executive). Stanhope Castle Abuse took place during the 1960’s and 70’s. Cleveland Police investigated but there were no criminal proceedings. There were several claims. Some settled. Some were not pursued. Many have not achieved justice. Will hear from Peter Robson, from Cleveland Police, from Middlesbrough Council and from a Claimant Solicitor, Alistair Smith. In addition we will also hear on the rights on various parties from Fay Maxstead (from Survivors Network), Nigel O’Mara (Survivor and Counsellor), Gregor McGil (CPS), Association of British Insurers, The Ministry of Justice and CICA representatives. We will be asking whether the past and present system provides effective accountability and reparations.

Alan Barker (Barrister from G8 – North Wales)

Complains of an overly vigorous and legalistic approach taken by Defendants.

David Greenwood (as per my opening published on the www.childabuselaw.co.uk website).

Aswini Weeratne (for Simpson Millar and B19 of St Aidan’s and St Vincent’s). B19 had two trials on limitation and two appeals. He suffered sexual and physical abuse of St Vincent’s in 1972. He started his civil case in 1997 and it lasted for 11 years. He is still without compensation. He has been through the mill but not achieved justice. He wants an abolition of the limitation law. He feels litigation is adversarial and rarely leaves claimants with a feeling of justice.

Alan Collins (Claimant Solicitor)

He makes a point that Scotland has already abolished the limitation time bar. He speaks about a redress scheme but questions who will pay for it. He criticises the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and considers a Motor Insurers Bureau – style no fault compensation scheme. He questions whether the Government should be able to rewrite the rules of any redress scheme. He also mentions that psychiatric assessments are intrusive and unnecessary in many cases and that the value of awards in the past have not been sufficient.

Mr. Simblett (for Uppal Taylor on behalf of Bryn Alyn Complainants)

He complains that the vigorous defence of claims has led to a lack of accountability and inability for claimants to achieve justice in many cases. He makes the point that there are powerful financial interests from Councils and Insurance Companies to actively fight these claims. He describes the system as inadequate and arbitrary. He criticises the CICA scheme for being difficult for non-represented claimants to pursue.

David Enright (for 27 Core Participants from Forde Park and Stanhope Castle)

He makes the point that the Home Office and various organisations have not apologised for the abuse suffered by boys at Forde Park and Stanhope Castle where Brian Heeney and Derek Hooper were convicted (Forde Park). He wants apologies from all of these institutions and reparations.

Adam Weizman QC (Fir Middlesbrough Council – Stanhope)

He explains that Middlesbrough Council act as a figurehead for Hartlepool, Stockton, Redcarr and Middlesbrough Councils who were insured between 1972 and 1981 by MMI which is now default and its liabilities have been taken over by Zurich. Pre-1973 there was no insurance. He explains that a number of claims were made in 2001. Some were settled in 2010. He passes on the apology and regret from Middlesbrough Council of any abuse.

Chris Web-Jenkins (for MMI)

He explains that MMI has duties to its original policy holders and to future policy holders not to spend its money in a way that harms the interest of future policy holders who would be required to contribute if this shortfall in funds (currently £750,000,000 is depleted too quickly).

Mr. Plemming (Zurich Insurance)

He explains that he supports the inquiry’s objectives. He wants cases handled fairly and professionally. He does make the point however that it is difficult to balance the interest of claimants and policy holders and they tend to follow the law. Zurich put their cases through a “complex work team”.

Mr. Hough (RSA/Keoghs)

He makes a point that 90% of cases are resolved without proceedings. Case studies took a long time because the law was in a state of flux. There is some cooperation between Claimant and Defendant Solicitors. He wants to maintain the current Civil Justice System because it has advantages. Insurers sometimes wish to test the evidence. He went on argue for the retention of the limitation defence, he is not opposed to redress schemes so long as they are limited to specific times and specific defendants. He opposes mandatory insurance because insurance could become expensive for policy holders. He essentially wants the status quo to remain in place (which is not surprising as he has to some extent being able to hold back the tide in recent years – writer’s comment).

Mr. Payne (on behalf of Durham Constabulary)

Makes an apology to Stanhope Castle Survivors. He makes a point that there is a balance between reparations and justice as to avoid claimants being accused of pursuing prosecutions just for the money.

27th November 2018

A21 at Bryn Alyn 1973-1975 Abused by John Allen.

Complained to Social Services in 1993. He wanted his file of papers but didn’t get them from the Council so contacted Uppal Taylor Solicitors. He had no confidence in the police he wanted to achieve justice. His case was taken to a hearing. He was unhappy at how he was cross-examined by Edward Faulkes. He felt that it was traumatic and that he was not believed. He eventually settled his case for £27,000. He has not received an apology. A23 at Bryn Alyn 1983 (for six months) He was sexually abused by John Allen six times in his office. He heard about a helpline and came forward in 1995. He gave evidence at the Waterhouse Inquiry. He tried to get financial compensation through a solicitor. There was a trial in 2001. He was cross-examined by Edwards Faulkes QC. He felt that Faulkes was trying to confuse him and asked about irrelevant information. He was awarded £7,000. He was prevented from getting anything due to the issue between RSA and John Allen. He eventually got an apology letter and £6,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

A29 at Bryn Alyn in 1973

He thought it was a nightmare. He was sexually and physically abused. He has had relationship problems and alcoholism. He spoke to the police. He took civil proceedings through Uppal Taylor Solicitors and eventually after going through his case and an appeal ended up with £21,000.

A1 He was sexually and physically abused by John Allen and two others in North Wales Children’s Homes.

He has been suicidal and turned to alcohol and drugs over the years. He has not found support helpful. He has made suicide attempts. He did a CICA claim through the Lantern Project and was awarded £22,000. He has tried again to get civil compensation through Alan Collins and that case is still ongoing.

28th November 2018

Neil Anderson of North Wales Police

He apologised to all participants in the North Wales Inquiries. They have introduced Independent Sexual Violence Advocates to signpost those coming forward now and suggests Criminal Injuries Compensation Claims. He explained the evolution of the Inquiry and how much the police knew over the years about John Allen, Gordon Anglesey, Stephen Norris, how the police cooperated with the Waterhouse Inquiry and Operation Pallial from 2012. Pallial received 374 complaints. They all won for six suspects, 23 arrests and 10 convictions. When asked about the policy of the police in relation to signposting individuals towards the Criminal Injuries Compensation, Mr. Anderson was unable to give a clear policy.

Philip Marshall of the National Crime Agency (Operation Pallial from November 2012)

He confirms that the NCA will not complete CICA forms but that complainants are referred to the CICA Scheme. Direct Criminal Court Compensation Orders are rarely used. The National Crime Agency simply signpost individuals.

Bilhar Uppal (Claimant Solicitor in the North Wales cases)

Bilhar explains the Limitation Act, case of A-v-Hoare, having to prove the abuse, having to go through disclosure issues, costs, causation and psychological reports. He feels that the civil litigation process is better than CICA but feels that nothing much has changed over the years. Defendants’ still force Claimants to issue proceedings in many cases. Still feels that civil litigation is an unpleasant experience for the Claimants but that they have no other option. Legal Aid is being more and more restricted and is an obstacle in many cases. He says that the Civil Courts are not fit purpose in Child Abuse cases. A Redress Scheme would leave Claimants less bruised and trust would be maintained.

29th November 2018 

29th November 2018

Alistair Gillespie (Defendant Solicitor of Keoghs – formerly Hill Dickinson) a grey suit, man in 50’s, beard, red tie.

Mr. G worked on North Wales Claims for Hill Dickinson from 1997. RSA, the insurer gave Hill Dickinson ‘delegated authority’ to handle claims in any way they wanted to. He says that RSA could challenge advice if they wanted to. He spends a great deal of time justifying the use of limitation (time limits) in civil proceedings, stating that it enables the court to decide whether there can be a fair trial. He reiterates the figure that 90% of cases don’t go to litigation. He states that limitation is always raised as all these cases are out of time. He cannot give figures on how many cases drop out before they are ‘resolved’. He states that in only 5% of cases the fact of the abuse itself is challenged. He makes the point that they ask the perpetrators whether or not it happened and if it is physically denied then they will deny that the abuse happened. He states that there is no substitute for the Claimant giving evidence. Any distress caused to Claimants is part and parcel of the system of which we find ourselves. He states that if Barristers use tricks, then the Claimant does have the opportunity to put those right in re-examination by their own Barrister. He went on to explain how he helped RSA evade responsibility for John Allen’s abuse (because there was an exception clause for deliberate abuse in the Insurance Policy). He is challenged on the unwillingness of his firm to accept the Waterhouse Inquiry evidence. He explains that the Waterhouse Inquiry was not sufficiently detailed in its report for him to be able to accept the evidence coming out of it. He would like to see the introduction of a pre-action protocol with exchange of information early on. Keoghs and RSA are seen as the harder end of the insurance market with other firms such as Ecclesiastical and Zurich being less tough on claimants. He states that it is Keoghs and RSA’s legal entitlement to take whatever decision they see fit but he states that it is not in the interest of any insurer to run points that have little or no merit and just increases costs. On limitation we have to demonstrate that there is prejudice so we have to try to find witnesses and work out whether they are dead or not. Mr. G was asked whether he had done an assessment of costs effective or softer or tougher approach. He was not aware of any data to enable him to answer the question. When questioned by Ivor Frank (Panel Member) Mr. G said that a Redress Scheme would prevent in-depth analysis of a case and that another problem is who pays for it. He has no objections to giving apologies but rarely does so but doesn’t stand in the way of an institution giving an apology.

Edwards Faulkes QC (Defendants’ Barrister) – a man in his 60’s wearing a dark suit and tie, curly brown hair.

He worked on the Bryn Alyn cases and advised RSA and Hill Dickinson (now Keoghs). His cross-examinations of the witnesses in the North Wales cases was examined. It was put to him that the undercurrent of his questioning was to accuse Claimants of lying. It was put to him that it was not appropriate to put the questions in the way that he did to the witness and he agreed that it would not have been nice to have been asked those questions but that generally the courts must not shut out the possibility of Defendants challenging cases. The Defendant is right to ask these questions, felt that it was appropriate. He is not in favor of ground rules at the outset of trial for questions to be asked. He was then asked about his questioning of A21/L6 and abused by John Allen, why he asked such searching questions. He explained that he was trying to establish the social workers state of awareness for the purposes of negligence as it was in a negligence case at that time and defended the claim which he asked searching questions of the witness. He accepted that asking him about contradicting evidence in documents may come across of accusing him of lying, this went to the potential value of his case. He feels that overall Limitation ought to be left to Parliament to decide after a low commissioned report. In discussion with Drusilla Sharpe she felt that a redress scheme would be difficult to be introduced.

Evidence of A78 – read by Lois Williams (Barrister)

SMJ was at Pentre Season and abused by John Allen and also F28. His motive for coming forward was to show that it happened and that he wanted to make a claim to establish truth and justice. He didn’t get any compensation. CICA were denied because of his convictions. He is trying to pursue a case the place in Council, Rochdale Council. He eventually got counselling and EMDR has given evidence to Operation Pallial.

Robert Balfour (Read) Abused by John Allen.

There was a culture of silencing survivors at Bryn Alyn. He is critical of the police, he feels that victims are ‘gas lighted’ by being told that they are money grabbing. He represented himself through Criminal Injuries Compensation and achieved £62,000 award. He feels that the free legal advice service would have made it easier. He did not pursue Civil Compensation as he received Criminal Injuries Compensation. Through the criminal trial he did not get good support. He now runs a service to help survivors. He feels that survivors are ‘othered’. He went to the Truth Project’ but then Wets Yorkshire Police turned up at his home. He thinks the third sector is best to help survivors and it created a holistic approach needed for support. He remains critical of the way he was treated by the police.

David Nichols (Zurich Executive)

His department handled 400-450 claims a year. It was 600 claims this year. They have 40% of the UK market. 30-40% of the claims received are successful. Zurich doesn’t run limitation as a defence in all cases. He is aware that Ecclesiastical don’t run limitation as a defence at all. He does not stand in the way of Policy Holders making apologies and paying for treatment as long as they do not accept liability without Zurich’s say so. He acknowledges that limitation can be used as leverage in settlement negotiations. He acknowledges that Zurich played a part in the holding back the Gilling’s Report. He justified this by saying that there was deformation considerations but there is a suspicion that Zurich tried to stop its publication as it would have led to findings of liability. He acknowledged a conflict of interest between obligations of the Local Authority and the Insurers, the insurers having a financial imperative but the Local Authority tries to do its best for people who it has let down. He acknowledges that in situations where a policy holder wishes to support Claimants and give them full compensation he will not stand in the way and that Zurich may come to some arrangement with the Policy Holder.

30th November 2018 AR-A13 (F24 – Anonymous witness)

A13 was at Forde Park and raped by Derek Hooper in the 1970’s. He spoke to the police in 1999. He delayed because of embarrassment and feeling degraded. One of the members of staff of Forde Park, Mr. Rawson was a Whistle Blower and was a lovely bloke. Mr. Rawson tried to do something about his reports of abuse but was prevented from doing anything. The tone of this witness was of desperation. In 1999 his brothers’ friend saw something in the news and he spoke to two female officers. He gave evidence at the trial of Derek Hooper who was convicted. The support he gave was insufficient. He feels that he should be able to get support when he needs it. He is taking tablets now. He pursued a CICA case with Wollercombe Watts Solicitors. He wanted an apology from the Council and the Home Office but hasn’t had one. He wanted to know why it happened. He complains that he didn’t get any education. He ended up with £60,000 CICA Compensation and he bought Brandy with it. He complains that being given the liquid cosh at Forde Park (Phenobarbitone and Beclamide). He has lost trust in all those in authority and the police. He feels that survivors should have been wrapped in cotton wool not just given derisory settlement offers and expected to find their own support. For the last 20 years he sweats at night and wakes up with wet sheets and has nightmares. He complains that his case was handled improperly in that he was not treated as an individual but meetings were mass meetings with approximately 80 people and Penny Ayles the Solicitor and a Barrister there. That happened four times. He couldn’t have funded it himself so he found himself having to settle his case. He feels that the system stinks, the time limit is wrong and that there should not be a time limit for sexual abuse cases. He took part in another case against AR-F26 the Choir Master but he was acquitted. He wrote to the Judge afterwards to say how disappointed he was and how he couldn’t believe that F26 had got away with it. He felt that he was not properly informed about the civil process and felt that he was worse off than when he started because of the harm that it had caused him. He has never had an apology and the pain continues. He has spoken to another Forde Park Core Participant on the day before he died and promised him that he would continue the fight. He would like to see higher compensation and the removal of limitation and a better system.

A13

At age 12 A13 was moved to Forde Park and was raped by Derek Hooper. He reported at Forde Park but nothing was done. When he left Forde Park he couldn’t tell anyone about the abuse. He decided to visit Hooper and fought with him and injured Hooper. It made him feel better in the short term but not long term. In 1999 he gave a statement to the police after he got a questionnaire in the post. He didn’t like talking about it but found it a necessary evil. He has still not received any counselling, he has had more support from the Forde Park Survivors Group. Tried to get civil compensation and was told that it was a ‘take it or leave it’ offer of £23,000, he had no other option but to accept it. He found a psychotherapist at the rate of £50 per half hour, but the psychotherapist actually asked him if he wanted to masturbate with him. A13 didn’t take the psychotherapist up on this offer. He is now on a waiting list. He feels abandoned as he has had no support. He has anxiety and takes prescription drugs. He doesn’t want a chemical enhancement. He wants peace of mind. He felt there was nothing professional about the civil process, he felt that the two QC’s involved worked together to keep payments to a minimum. He felt that there was no hint of negotiation. The Claimant’s QC was Ms. Gumbel.

A27 (Forde Park Survivor)

A27 was abused between 1974 and 1978 by Mr Ely. He was a Master at Forde Park and in the scout group. He complained to the police in 1976. 13 boys spoke to the police back then. When he left in 1978 after he lost his job he fell into crime and went to a Young Offenders Institution where there was some bullying but no abuse. He got in touch with the police in 1999 through Operation Lentisk and gave a statement. He spoke to a Solicitor at WBW and attended mass meetings, saw Dr Friedman but didn’t feel involved. He case settled for £3,000. He wanted an acknowledgment of Forde Parks’ failure and an apology but didn’t get one. He had two sessions of counseling via his GP which had been positive but overall didn’t understand the process and felt uninvolved, he has had depression, suicidal thoughts and alcohol dependency which he attributes to the abuse.

AR-A6 (Forde Park Survivor who is recently deceased – statement read)

Sexual abuse from older boys and Mr. Hooper at Forde Park. He was at Forde Park for 5 years. he reported to the police back then but they did not follow it up. He was not happy with the civil compensation system which he felt was rushed. When he got it he spent it on drink and drugs. He felt completely insulted by the Civil Justice System. There was no support, just money. He wasn’t treated as an individual. He felt herded with others. He gave a statement for only an hour and felt like a spectator in his own case. He was offered £15,000 and told to take it or leave it. He felt abandoned and led up the garden path by the solicitors.

AR-A3 (F36)

Read Sexual abuse from Hooper at Forde Part. Staff knew what was going on. Only found out about the case in 2017 and didn’t know that CICA or Civil Proceedings existed. He is getting counselling from his GP.

AR-A7 (F18)

No sexual abuse at Forde Park but abused at four other institutions. Victim of Hooper at another institution but not involved in the criminal trial. No CICA application. He did pursue a Civil Compensation and got £12,000. He felt that solicitors failed to listen to him and felt like it was a smack in the face and felt railroaded into accepting the settlement and didn’t get enough support.

AR-A9 (F19)

Read Sexual abuse by Hooper and Ely. Compensation can’t make it go away. He was not aware of CICA’s existence. He has tried to get support but the therapist failed to turn up. AR-A11 (F20) Read F18 and F19 sexually abused him. Also abused by Ely and Hooper. Not in the ‘A’ trial but in the ‘B’ trial which didn’t go ahead as Hooper was convicted in ‘A’ trial. No CICA as had previous convictions. Offered £55,000 but pressured to accept and told would not get anything at all if he didn’t accept. Felt that the claims were settled in a generic manner and he was not treated as an individual. He got some counseling through his GP but that made him feel more anxious.

AR-A15 (F51) Read 

groomed and raped him at Forde Park. No CICA. Involved with the police but no counseling offered. AR-A31 (F16) Hooper raped him, took photographs and abused by Ely. F21 touched his genitals. Not called to give evidence at the Hooper or Ely trial. In the civil process he did not feel treated like an individual. There were large group meetings and he was told that he had to settle or he would be bankrupted. He felt that as though the Council knew about the abuse for years. He never met his Barrister one to one and felt that the Solicitor and Barrister did what they did to make it easy for themselves. He was offered £4,000 and was told that Legal Aid would be withdrawn if he rejected it and would have to pay for it privately. He asked for support and has had CBT and is feeling better now.

AR-A41 (F55)

Sexual abuse from F32, F40 and F26 also raped by Hooper. Gave evidence at the Hooper Criminal trial. He was accused of making it up by the Defence Barristers. Hooper was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison. F26 was found not guilty. A41 came off the rails. Received £50,000 through the civil process but was told to accept otherwise he would lose everything. He did not feel that he was kept up to date. He did not pursue a CICA as there was no double recovery. He felt that he didn’t get a good explanation from Solicitors and felt abandoned at the end of the criminal and civil processes.

AR-A44 (F57)

Raped by other children and raped by a member of staff F34. He felt that the solicitors’ main purpose was to make money and not to help us. He felt as though it was just the lawyers talking among themselves and that he should have been treated as an individual. He was offered £10,000 when his case was valued at £100,000. He complained that there was mass meetings and no one to one meetings.

Paul Sinclair (Formerly Lewis) Sexually abused by Ely and Hooper.

He was in the group ‘B’ for the criminal cases. Ely was convicted and he attended court to see Ely sentenced he felt that he didn’t get justice through the civil system and dint get an apology. CICA was refused as he had a criminal record. He was not treated as an individual in the civil case.

3rd December 2018

Deborah Marsden – Devon and Cornwall Police

An up to date experience of survivors would mean that they would have a victims needs assessment completed by a police officer and be seen by the Victim Care Unit and a Sexual Offences Liaison Officer (SOLO). They would be directed to ISVAs (advisor) and to a SARC (Sexual Advice Centre). Sexual Offence Liaison Officers tend to refer survivors to the CICA likewise ISVAs although the timing of advice is not set. Devon and Cornwall Police do not routinely suggest Civil Compensation. Deborah Marsden worked on the Forde Park investigation Operation Lentisk from 1998. 1,287 statements were taken from 240 former pupils. Hooper and Ely were convicted. Social Services were involved. There was an NSPCC Helpline. Responded to the CICA on 69 applications by 2002.

Emily Williams (Devon Council) – Read

Devon Council were insured with MMI with a zero excess. MMI took up all of the responsibilities. Veitch Penney were the Defendants Solicitors for the Forde Park case and then it switched to Brown Jacobson. Claimants’ Solicitors were Woolcombe Beer Watts. 46 cases were settled, five were repudiated and 23 discontinued. 26 are ‘unknown’.

Rod Luck MMI (Claims and Re-Insurance Manager).

He works for MMI and Zurich. He receives 2-250 claims per year. They generally insure Local Authority’s, Social Service Department/Education. There has been an increase in the number of claims recently. Limitation is always raised as these cases are always out of time. He very much takes the view of looking dispassionately at cases and assessing prospects and value. Their Panel Solicitors include Browne Jacobson, Weightmans, DAC Beechcroft, Crutes and DWF Solicitors. He will ask his solicitors appointed to investigate liability, limitation, causation and value. On Forde Park 46% of cases were paid damages. He is non-committal on a redress scheme. He would like to see litigation simplified to make it easier for Claimants and support the provision of treatment. He would like a pre-action protocol to ensure that Letters of Claim are more detailed. He thinks apologies are an issue for Local Authorities.

Christa Papolou (Home Office Representative)

The Home Office were responsible for Forde Park between 1973. They initially defended litigation but lost applications for limitation to be tried as a preliminary issue and lost an appeal of the decision and eventually settled their cases. Table of Abuse Was read out regarding the North Wales Litigation with Claimants expressing feelings of being degraded, not receiving Criminal Injuries Compensation or receiving low amounts and feeling unhappy with Civil Litigation and the CICA. Each complaint of being unhappy with the process, with being called a liar in criminal proceedings and civil proceedings being challenged and various hurdles put up by Defendants in litigation.

4th December 2018

Paul Connolly (St Leonard’s Survivor)

Physical abuse and sexual abuse from Alan Prescott and Hayden Daniel. He gave a statement to the police on Operation Mapperton. He joined a class action and was represented by Tracey Storey of Irwin Mitchell. He was psychologically assessed by Dr Friedman who provoked him. he complained that he did not get justice through the civil system and no apology. He felt that he was just a number and that he had no choice but to settle the civil case.

Daniel O’Malley (Metropolitan Police – Operation Mapperton Senior Investigating Officer)

This was an investigation into the St Leonard’s home operated by London Borough of Tower Hamlets. It was found that a fair trial was not possible as some documents were missing in the Hayden case. Counselling was not offered by the police and the police wanted to avoid advising individuals to seek compensation. Eventually referrals were made to the Tavistock Clinic. He has written to the CICA for some Claimants who made claims.

Craig Turner (Metropolitan Police – Child Sex Abuse Investigator)

When interviewing Claimants he would refer them to local contacts for support and directed them to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority on a case by case basis. He had no specific policy on abuse regarding civil claims.

Steven Tinkler (Risk manager at London Borough of Tower Hamlets) –

statement read The Borough was insured with MMI. The Council do not want to stand in the way of Claimants but allowed MMI to make the decision and a compensation scheme was eventually set up with Browne Jacobson Solicitors and Claimants.

Richard Baldwin (Director of Children Services – London Borough of Tower Hamlets)

He felt that there was a conflict between given an apology and the legal position> the London Borough tried to refer individuals to the Tavistock Clinic for help.

Steven Baldwin (London Borough of Tower Hamlets)

Social Workers assisted Claimants with Criminal Injuries Compensation Claims. He felt that it was good practice for them to assist. He was generally in favor of redress schemes. Councils have to balance provision of services with compensating those they have harmed. They have to manage resources. He apologised for losing records.

5th December 2018

Malcolm Johnson and Tracey Storey.

Each Claimants’ Solicitors agree that the civil process is not a good process although the Council in that case came to a relative swift decision to settle the cases and a method of meeting, discussing and reporting back to Claimants was set up and Claimants were dealt with individually. Malcom feels that the most important thing it to resolve cases with as little adversarial position taking and cost as possible. With Claimants having access to good advice.

Sarah Erwin Jones (woman in her 50’s, red dress, glasses, brown shoulder length hair)

She dealt with the St Leonard’s litigation on which Malcolm Johnson and Tracey Storey had commented. The general way in which she deals with cases is that she writes a report to Local Authorities and Insurers after doing investigations if there are relevant convictions they advise settlement should take place. She agrees that limitation can be used strategically to pull down the value of cases but that her clients want to be fair. She mainly acts for Local Authorities. She acknowledges that there are different styles and approaches from Defendant Lawyers but that differences are not marked as those from Claimants. Horse trading? Was common in the 1990’s to early 2000 but we know much more about how courts will value cases. Insofar as improvements and concerns she would like to see pre-action protocol to exchange information earlier. She makes the point that costs in the St Leonard’s case were much higher for the Claimants than the Defendants.

A15 (Read by Lois Williams)

St Leonard’s Survivor Raped by Haden Davies. Doesn’t recall a CICA claim. Received £60,000 settlement but was not pleased with the Solicitor. He wanted his day in court instead. He felt that it was a farce and there was no admission of liability. He did try all sorts of therapies and that doctors just tried to prescribe their way out of dealing with people.

AR-A87 Abused at St Aidan’s.

The first people that he spoke to were Cheshire Police. Abused by McAvoy. McAvoy was not convicted of offences against him but was convicted for offences against others. The Police told him to pursue a civil case. He ended up speaking to Abney Garsden’s Solicitors via his own solicitor, James Murray. He wanted his day in court and needed to be believed. Limitation was introduced as an issue. The High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Holland accepted his evidence, it was a small win but he lost on limitation. There were a number of appeals. He wanted Nugent Care to accept liability or even apologise but they didn’t. He feels that if he had his time again then he wouldn’t have pursued a case. He felt it took 12 or 13 years of his life away. He didn’t want to disrespect his legal team but he felt that the only people who benefited were the lawyers. He thinks that the law of limitation should be changed.

A36 (F42) Was at St Aidan’s aged 7 to 8.

Sexually abused by Colin Dick. Also abused by Keith Sutton of St Thomas’ Moor School, Southport. Sutton and Dick pleaded guilty receiving 14 and 4 years respectively in prison. He was told by Merseyside Police to seek Legal Advice and consulted Sue Jarvis at Picktons and then joined a Group Action run by Paul Durkin at Abney Garden and McDonalds. He wanted the truth to come out and for the Defendants to admit that he was not a liar. He was called a liar throughout the criminal cases. He was told in 2006 that he could not pursue his case and tried again in 2013 but Hill Dickinson wrote a long letter. He feels that he would not have turned his life around without the help of the police and a social worker.

AR-A194 (F41) Sexually abused at St Aidan’s by Colin Dick.

He did not make a CICA claim as he was not aware of it. He did not make a civil claim and did not access support.

Darren Martland (Acting Deputy Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary) a man in his 50’s wearing a full tunic uniform.

He thinks in the 1990’s and 2000’s were not done systematically by the police. Support was not provided back then and now more help is available and survivors are routinely signposted. Operation Emily looked into St Aidan’s and St Vincent’s. There were 60 suspects and 4 convictions. Some of the suspects were dead. There is one investigation still ongoing. He does not recall how the in 1990’s how the CICA would be accessed or advised by the police. There is now a public protection unit and Detective Constables are trained at “PIP Two Level” and they refer to the CICA at first contact, although this is only by ticking a box on the rear of a statement form. They refer to CICA generally only after the end of the criminal investigation. This could cause a problem with the two year time limit for the CICA.

Serena Kennedy (Deputy Chief Constable of Merseyside) wearing a full tunic uniform

Was head of Public Protection Director in 2015. She has looked back at records and finds that there were 45 Complainants for St Vincent’s, 20 suspects and 2 convictions (Stanton and Langshore). St Aidan’s the convictions were against Terrance Hoskin and Colin Dick. The victims were handed a helpline card back then although she cannot trace one of these. At the time survivors were referred to the Liverpool City Council for support. She does not know when survivors were referred to the CICA, if indeed they were, and refers to the tick box at the back of the statement form (MG11). Nowadays ISVA’s are allocated according to need via the MASH Hub/RASA Service. Officers send individuals to the SARC and do not raise the issue of civil compensation. ISVAs may do so. It was a policy decision not to raise the issue of compensation until after the trials in Operation Care in the 1990’s

Normandie Wragg (Chief Executive Officer of Nugent Care) – Read

Nugent Care was insured for all cases after 1960 with RSA and solicitors being Hill Dickinson/Keoghs. Nugent Care had no financial interest in the claims and had no input. She has sympathy and compassion for children abused.

Peter Gardsen and Paul Durkin (two men in their 50’s each wearing a suit and tie)

Explains that until 2008 cases had to run in negligence to avoid the six year fixed backstop for assaults which was set by the Stubbing-v-Webb Case (overturned by AV Hoare in 2008). He set up a North West Child abuse Group which included Dyson Hall and Greystone Heath (Liverpool City Council Defendant), Danesford (National Children’s Home Defendant) and St Aidan’s and St Vincent’s (Nugent Care/RSA/Kill Dickinson and Keoghs as Defendants). Cases were run with Legal Aid. It turned out that the case took 14 years to complete. The cases involving Danesford, Greystone Heath and Dyson Hall settled after two or three years. St Vincent’s and St Aidan’s cases took 14 years they were defended vigorously by RSA and Hill Dickinson. Peter explained that Claimants don’t generally want money. They want to be believed. He took the example of B19 who was called a liar and F42 was also called a liar. Paul Durkin explained that the client’s needs support at the outset when they come forward. He feels that it is important to establish trust with Claimants to get to know them and to get the best out of them to help them with the case. Most actually don’t want to go to court. Peter adds that litigation sometimes becomes their life’s meaning and getting recognition is what survivors want. He explained that it is important to ensure that Claimants are in control of their case. He and Paul will signpost to support groups. Getting support on the NHS is difficult and only when compensation is received can be it paid for. It is not their experience that interim payments are made to pay for this. The only difference between Danesford, Greystone Heath, Dyson Hall and St Aidan’s and St Vincent’s on the issue of how long the cases took was the attitude of the Defendant. Danesford’s Insurer was the Methodists Organisation and wanted to do the right thing. Liverpool City Council decided that it wanted to do the right thing also. Peter complains that the solicitors for RSA took the technical strikeout point, of attempting to strikeout the risk in 1997 this was because it did not have the full names if the Claimants. They were extremely adversarial throughout, pursuing appeals where possible. Peter complains that litigation is a blunt tool. It should be abolished. Other jurisdictions have abolished it (Scotland, New South Wales in Australia and Canada). Ecclesiastical Insurance do not take the point. However RSA and Hill Dickinson (Keoghs) take limitation in every single case. He also makes the point that it is worrying that limitation decisions are going against Claimant’s in the appeal courts at the moment. Paul explains that he is not convinced that the judicial is capable of dealing with these cases. Judges are likely to come across only one of these cases in their careers and the decision is discretionary so can go either way. Defendants concentrate of lack of documentation and minor inconsistencies and deploy medical experts who point out where memories are not entirely clear. He explains that the judicial approach is clumsy and crude and leads to injustice. There is a run of adverse cases which means that we are advising fewer clients that we can continue. In 1989 Nugent Care applied to have limitation pursued as a preliminary issue. Claimants were called liars. Paul makes the point that it is unattractive to have a full trial on all issues and to call Claimants liars and more attractive to a Judge to looks at the technical issues around limitation which makes the Judges work easier. Peter thinks limitation is artificial and wrong. After a number of appeals some cases discontinued and some settled but Paul says they should have settled much earlier. An attritional tactic of taking every single point was designed to wear the group down and Paul’s job was to keep everyone motivated. It was a difficult time. No quarter was given by the Defendants. It was long and hard and not fair on many Claimants. The alternative would be to seek modest financial damages, settling earlier with fewer legal costs. Paul was perplexed that the Defendants were fighting the litigation as it didn’t make any economic sense. There were two third wins for the Claimant Group. Some Claimants dropped out on the way, there was litigation fatigue die to the attritional nature of the litigation. For Paul it is a question of getting to the evidence of the abuse rather than looking at technical legal arguments on limitation. Paul and Peter are believers in schemes as they are less attritional and the law in limitation can be manipulated and twisted. They also make the point that physical abuse cases are not allowed in as a result of the St Aidan’s and St Vincent’s Court of Appeal decisions and Paul makes the point that without a scheme or new legislation we are reliant on the insurance industry to do the right thing and it is getting harder and harder for the Claimants. Peter makes the point that the system means that the system means that we are losing buy in from survivors who do not wish to pursue cases. Peter also makes the point that Defendant Lawyers are only seeing the very strongest cases. His firm only accepts 1/3 of the cases that come to him and only a very small proportion end up being successful. A no fault compensation scheme would mean a better outcome for survivors. If limitation were abolished there would be many more cases likely to succeed. Both Paul and Peter agree that the Residential Institution’s Redress Board Scheme was fair and compassionate. The Jersey Scheme also worked, the Lambeth Scheme is speedy, allows legal costs and an apology. A scheme would need to be open-ended without a time limit. The issue is who funds it. There should be no bar on pursuing the civil system if necessary. Mediation failed in the Nugent Care case as the Defendants had no appetite to mediate. After questioning from Iva Frank, Paul explained that the ingredients of a redress scheme would be an acknowledgement of the abuse, an apology, financial redress and counselling. 6th December 2018 – nothing dictated for 6.12.18

7th December 2018

Steve Bellingham (man in 50’s, grey suit and tie – UK Technical Manager for RSA)

He sets the strategy. He has three individuals working on CSA cases in his team and hands out all the work to Keoghs Solicitors (formerly Hill Dickinson). He accepts that given that there were convictions, a proportion of the Claimants were abused but it was RSA’s decision to defend. RSA defend vigorously. When questioned about an ethical dimension to decision making his response was that he works on a basis of what the law will allow and ethical considerations are not considered. He did say however that if the Policy Holder wants to pay out, he will listen to them and may have to pay out themselves or do some kind of deal to reflect if they feel the case could go if defended vigorously. He thinks that using limitation in appropriate circumstances is right. He feels that to leave it to the Judges is the right thing to do. He agrees that an arithmetic calculation for each case is done and that decisions are based on commerciality. He is content to use global offers. He agrees that in the St Vincent’s and St Aidan’s cases the number of appeals may have resulted in a higher cost for RSA early settlement. He stands by the line that he will authorise solicitors to put up defences’ where they are material and have prospects of success. He does not have a written policy but do have internal tactical policies. Since 2009 18% of cases coming to them litigate and only 6 trials have taken place, defences were held in five of the six cases. Claimants are paid damages in 49% of the cases coming to them. He is not sure why 51% were discontinued. On redress schemes he agrees they are okay but it is about money at the end of the day. He was supported if it was commercially beneficial. On the issue of apologies, he states that he is not involved with apologies.

Carolyn McKenzie – Complex Claims Director for RSA (woman in 30’s, dark jacket, curly shoulder length brown hair)

RSA receive 130 CSA claims per year. She is considering putting together a policy document on how to respond to CSA claims. Legal defences are taken. They rely on the expertise of claim handlers (Solicitors at Keoghs) to weigh up prospects and fight cases where appropriate. She supports limitation remaining in place as if it didn’t there would be financial consequences for RSA.

A34 (F31) – Stanhope Castle Survivor

Physically and sexually abused at Stanhope Castle. He told the social worker about the brutality, he got beaten in front of everyone as a result. He went to see a Solicitor, Alistair Smith and saw him two or three years. He still gets flashbacks and had a nightmare last night. He wanted to bring the abusers to justice. He thought it was Cleveland Council but now understands that Middlesbrough Council are dealing with it. He got no education from Stanhope Castle and only got Maths and English in GCSE’s when he got an NVQ in Health and Social Care because he needed them. His case was unsuccessful in his civil claim. CICA was mentioned. CPS decided not to prosecute. He was beaten on his backside, legs and back with a cane. His hands were held with a rope as this was happening. He has scars. He was also beaten with a bar of soap wrapped in a towel. He was sexually abused in a sick bay. He had 10 weeks counselling; an hour a week, given to him by the police. He wants an apology, compensation and support. He wants the legal process to be easier and less stressful.

A25 (F32) – Stanhope Castle Survivor

Sexually abused by F17 from the age of 12 to 14 whilst at Stanhope and out on walks. Physically beaten by F17 as well. Reported this to Matron. He found out about Stanhope Castle via Facebook and shocked to read the stories. He got in touch with Watson Woodhouse Solicitors and the Police. F17 is now dead and the police could not pursue it. He has had some counselling. He told the solicitors that he wasn’t interested in money but the Solicitors still attempted to make a civil claim for him without his consent. He is very unhappy with Watson Woodhouse Solicitors. He wasn’t asked whether he wanted to pursue a CICA claim. 10th December 2018

Peter Robson (Stanhope Castle Survivor) – wearing a blue t-shirt. Man in his late 50’s.

Mr Robson waived his anonymity. He was caught shoplifting at age 11 and sent to Stanhope Castle. He was raped repeatedly by another child and caned on his bare backside by a schoolmaster. He left Stanhope on the 16th October 1967. He told someone at Stanhope Castle but no action was taken. He felt as though he could not tell his mother and realised later that his brother had been abused also. He had not told anyone else until 2015 when he spoke to his niece about what had happened to him. He tried to blank it from his mind. Mr Robson feels that he is lucky – his brother turned to drink – but Mr Robson had not. He was able to find counselling after being persistent with a local group in Middlesbrough. He only got it when he mentioned that he was part of IICSA and they had a relationship with IICSA so he got 12 sessions of counselling. He eventually went to Stockton Police Station and spoke to DC Dawn Clarke. Mr Robson feels that DC Dawn Clarke was very good with him. The police could not find the abuser but he acknowledges that the police did the best that they could to try and find him. This has all had a serious effect on him. He tends to lash out at the people who are closest to him because to use his words ‘I hate myself’. In relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Application he was advised by DC Dawn Clarke to make the application. His application was first rejected in May 2017 on the basis that the police could not locate the perpetrator and that there was insufficient evidence. He became upset at hearing the news and felt like committing suicide there and then as he felt he was not being believed. He asked for a review of the decision and the case was successful and David Greenwood took over the case and submitted further evidence from another survivor of Stanhope Castle who had been subjected to similar abuse. He was offered £22,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Mr Robson apologises to David Enright, to Alexandra Mirraty of the IICSA staff and his childhood friend Peter Smith for all the hassle he has caused. In relation to the civil claim he felt that one problem is getting a solicitor to believe you. He felt that Legal Aid was also problematic as it was difficult to get, if he could he would have preferred to have done it without litigation. He is also put off by the Limitation Statute Laws. Mr Robson has faith in IICSA, Alexis Jay and the Panel. He hopes that a Redress Scheme, where litigation is not necessary can be established. He reminds us that he thinks about the abuse every day and he has tried to kill himself once. Colin Watson (Stanhope Castle Survivor) – Anonymity Waived – Read Mr Watson was abused at Stanhope Castle. He feels that the police should investigate more thoroughly and that the CICA and Civil systems are not good enough because they only provide money and do not bring people to account. In relation to a civil claim, he feels that his former solicitor, Watson Woodhouse put in a Civil and CICA Claim against his wishes. He was told to try for £10,000 but he did not authorise this and he has since found out that was done without his authority. He wants to know why this was done without his consent. He is bedbound and finds it difficult to access counselling support. He has tried MIND in Middlesbrough and Stockton without success.

AR – A96/F20 (Stanhope Castle Survivor) – Read

A civil case, he is not aware of the process and preferred not to bother. He has applied for Criminal Injuries Compensation but this has not yet been determined. He did have some counselling in his late 30’s but wants to avoid psychiatrists now. Assistance Chief Constable David Orford (Durham Constabulary) – man in his 50’s wearing full tunic police uniform. The up to date position with Durham Constabulary is that they have a Public Protection Unit. They work with Darlington and Durham Councils and have a network of SARCs (Sexual Assault Referral Centres) these are the first port of call with recent abuse but they also deal with non-recent abuse allegations. His officers signpost survivors to local and national agencies and he encourages officers to keep in touch with victims of abuse. He recognises that there is a conflict between pursuing Criminal Injuries Compensation Claim and police investigation and that sometimes officers hold back information about the CICA until an investigation is concluded. The force has a single point of contact to deal with all CICA enquiries. In relation to Criminal Compensation Orders direct from Judges, there is a feeling among his officers that abusers won’t pay as they are in prison. In relation to civil cases, many of his officers do signpost to solicitors but that is discretionary according to the officer. He does intend to bring in complainants to speak to officers at their training courses. He acknowledges that a 1999 report into Stanhope Castle was below standard and failed to follow proper procedures. The 2013 investigation code name ‘Operation Midday’ was run by Chief Superintendent Paul Goundry with 28 victims, 59 crimes and 31 sexual offences identified in 2016 and the number is still growing. Watson Woodhouse Solicitors helped in providing witnesses and evidence. In 16 cases the abuser was deceased. In 11 cases there were evidential problems (lack of corroboration etc.), in one case a suspect was unfit for trial and in one physical case the case was not accepted by the Crown Prosecution Service. The strategy document was set up by Paul Goudry with IICSA reference OHY006320_004. All complainants got a detailed letter from DC Dawn Clarke which advised to either pursue the CICA application themselves or to go through and ISVA.

James Bromiley (Middlesbrough Council Executive) – man in his 40’s. Tall, grey suit and blue tie.

He gives his deepest sympathies and gives his apologies to survivors. He is the Strategic Director for Finance, Governance, Pensions and Legal and Democratic. When a claim is received he instructs lawyers who pursue the case according to legal principles. The Home Office ran Stanhope Castle until 1973 and then Cleveland took it over. In 1994 Cleveland Council became Hartlepool, Stockton, Cleveland and Middlesbrough Council. Middlesbrough now represent the four Councils. Middlesbrough Council rely on Solicitors to obtain their own social services records from other various Councils. Durham Council may hold records for Stanhope Castle. When questioning his acceptance of legal advice and told that a Council can chose not to accept legal advice his response was “we have to justify settling any claim as it is public money”. He goes on to say “I don’t think it is appropriate not to raise a defence where it is possible to do so”. When told that Tower Hamlet decided that it was a moral decision on their part to meet claims and not to take the advice of lawyer his response is “I seek advice on how the law applies now”. He did point out that 33 Stanhope cases which started in 2001 settled in 2010 for small payments. These had been physical cases. Questions of Professor Jay Q Do you accept that children were abused in these Councils? A We have to look at individual cases. Q What is the Council’s general reserve? A £50,000,000. Q Has compensation to survivors of this nature even been debated in the Council’s Chamber? A Not to my knowledge. Q Do you draw it to the Councillors attention? A I have had some discussion with elective members. Questions of Drusilla Sharpling Q Does the Council have any corporate memory of these matters? A That is a bit unfair. The previous insurance manager would have been in a better position to respond. Questions from Iva Frank Q How long ago was the previous insurance manager in post? A A substantial number of years. I believe he transferred from Cleveland Council in 1994 and ceased work in 2017. Q What is his name? A Robert Chamberling.

Rod Luck (Claims and Insurance Manager MMI) – man in his 50’s, shaved head. Dark suit and glasses.

MMI are on cover for Stanhope from the late 1960’s and insured Cleveland between 1973 and 1981. A number of claims came forward in 2002 officer via physical assaults it appeared between 2002 and 2010 they were not being pursued. We now know that claimant’s solicitors were waiting for the case law to change (A-v-Hoare). He is aware of a 1979 report from the DHSS of 1974 to 1977 abuse allegations. He believes that the report is sufficient to decide that abuse was taking place at the school at that time. A former teacher was found at that point who gave cause for concern and we took a statement from him. Some proceedings were issued and we then decided to settle the claims. We had a strong limitation defence but the settlements were modest. Costs were agreed on a group basis. Recent Stanhope cases after 2013 – when asked why these cases have not settled Mr Luck’s response was that the cases are a further 10 years on. There was no indication of previous sexual abuse in the old documentation. We do take limitation as a defence if it is appropriate. A number of abusers had died and in our view these cases were not very strong. The Solicitor for the Claimants did not address the point in detail. There was no explanation of a case on limitation which we could have expected. We thought that the Claimants Solicitor had lost confidence about winning. Overall where we consider limitation as a legitimate defence we take it. There is nothing illegitimate about a limitation defence. Mr Luck had nothing to say about a Redress Scheme. There were no questions for the Panel.

Penelope Ayles (formerly of Wollercombe Beer Watts Solicitors) – was unwell and will attend in person on the 15th January 2019.

11th December 2018

A25 (Stanhope Survivor)

He was referred to Watson Woodhouse Solicitors by other survivors of Stanhope Castle and met Alistair Smith at a short meeting. He needed Counselling and was not interested in compensation. He just wanted an acknowledgment. He never met the solicitors again. He had no phone calls. He was unaware of an offer being made until the 15th November 2018.

12th December 2018

Alistair Smith (Solicitor – Watson Woodhouse) – man in his 50’s. Grey suit, short hair.

Mr Smith gave evidence to explain that gathering evidence of Stanhope Castle was difficult as there was a lack of records and the records that survived there were no references to abuse. he tended to meet the victims face to face. His view was that Legal Aid was reducing and so signed Conditional Fee Agreements. He would have to pay for medical reports and court fees etc. overall he found that Claimants were difficult to communicate with and he was often the first person they had spoken to about their abuse. He would send a client care letter. There was a group of Claimants who had come together headed by Colin Watson, this was mid to late-2014. Claimants started to disclose physical and then sexual abuse and he wrote letters of claim. He had a conference with Barrister, Mr Levinson, attended by the ATE Insurer who decided that further investigation was required. He needed to work out what MMI (the insurer of Stanhope) response was going to be. They would need statements and corroboration and this would be an 18 month process. It would be a very difficult case as some perpetrators were dead or not traced. In his view the difference between physical and sexual cases on limitation is unfair. The law tends to favour sexual cases over physical cases as the stigma on sexual cases is greater but this is difficult to explain to a survivor of hard physical abuse. The police investigation had proved unsuccessful and ATE insurance was not available. These were likely to be low-level compensation claims as a result of all these factors. In relation to Mr Watson, Mr Smith had all his signed authorities to proceed. A letter of claim was displayed on the screen along with the insurance documentation and responses from the insurers dealing with limitation and the death of perpetrators etc. Mr Smith suggested an offer of £10,000. He did not receive a response. Mr Smith cannot recall pursuing a CICA application for Mr Smith, and cannot recall making a £10,000 offer. There was criticism that the claims were not pushed hard enough. Mr Smith felt that the defence on limitation was being pushed very hard. He tried to explain the difficulties that they would have in paying for medical evidence and court issue fees. Some clients understood that they were unable to pursue them but some did not. All the cases were discontinued. No offers from Criminal Injuries Compensation due to lack of evidence. Mr Smith was surprised by the Peter Robson success. Mr Smith criticised the adversarial system as it is designed to trip up witnesses. Going through the process is too long. He feels that many applicants will die whilst waiting for their cases to be concluded.

Nigel O’Mara (Counsellor)

Mr O’Mara was a child prostitute up until the age of 22. He set up the Survivors UK Helpline. He reported his own abuse to the police at ages 12 and 15. He was dismissed by the police and no one was prosecuted. He feels that support is needed, more should be available. The police should be empathetic and should be given more training. There are very few agencies set up for male survivors of abuse. His service at Survivors UK has evolved. All of his advisors are credited but still relies on donations or grants. He now spends a lot of his time campaigning. He has worked with an East Midlands Survivor Service and produced a training video. He makes appropriate referrals. He feels that there is a postcode lottery on getting good help and support for survivors. He feels that accountability and reparation should be access to justice, in improvements in the quality of life of survivors and not just financial redress. Survivors need help, support and an apology. A redress scheme is more appropriate and an educational trust.

Lee Eggleston (Rape Crisis Operations Manager) and Faye Maxsted (Manager of The Survivors Trust, an alliance of survivor support organisations)

Their organisations support teams, train ISVA’s and campaign for improvements to the support network. They are focused on empowering survivors to recover by giving them information, more understanding and knowledge and signposting them to good services. They felt that there were sufficient services for male survivors but signposting is important. They have been subjected a large increase in demand and a longer waiting list. They complain that there was limited government funding. There is some PCC, some Local Authority and some Charity funding but these are short term. Seeking funds is a distraction from the support organisation. There are 680 paid staff and 900 volunteers. Volunteers still cost money. The solution is sustainable funding, possibly pooling resources from the NHS and other organisation. They make the point that the Home Office have stopped funding ISVA’s but they need a collaborative approach. Faye Maxsted would like to see support centrally to develop services and expand services with close collaboration between commissioning bodies. 12th December 2018 Representative of RSA/Nugent Care Passes on his apology mentioned by Howe & Co. The apology included an offer of support and a meeting with survivors.

Emma Barnett (Assistance Chief Constable Staffordshire Police and NSPCC Lead for Victim and Witnesses)

She finds that there are inconsistencies due to local approaches of police forces. There is a Victim’s Code of Practice published in October 2015. Police forces are advised to signpost to Rape Crisis, SARC’s ISVA’s although there is local variation. On the issue of civil compensation there is variations to when victims are informed and whether they are informed by police officers. In relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority it is a matter of goof professional practice to signpost individuals to the CICA. It has to be recognised that any compensation claim can be mentioned in cross-examination at criminal trials and there is pressure on investigating officers not to mention CICA or compensation.

Gregor McGill (CPS Representative) – Read

There are various documents and there is guidance given by the CPS victim code such as a meeting with a victim after a decision not to prosecute. There are special measures in Criminal Courts, Compensation Orders can be applied for direct to the Judge in a criminal case. There is no guidance given for advice on CICA or Civil Cases by CPS Lawyer.

Philippa Handyside (Association of British Insurers General Council)

The Association of British Insurers is a Trade Association. Not all insurers are members. Membership is voluntary. This is UK only. It is not a regulator but does develop good practice. ABI guidance is not compulsory. She referenced the Waterhouse Inquiries of 1999 and low commissioned report of 2004 that insurers should take an “arm’s length approach”. From an insurers point of view there should be a proper investigation of the facts. The ABI have given advice on apologies which should not refer to compensation and should not admit liability. The ABI is supportive of a pre-action protocol on child abuse cases. When questioned on the limitation defence she believes that the court process is the one which strikes the bounds of Claimant and Defendant interests. If the Defence is not used it could lead to more claims. She is interested in discussing a redress scheme but is unsure of policy requirements regarding insurance coverage. Iva Frank of the Panel points out the Claimants are faced with a David and Goliath task and is concerned that insurers can lobby Ministers and Government without needing to register their lobbying activities.

Melissa Case (The Ministry of Justice – Director for Civil Justice)

She discussed Compensation Orders direct from the Judge and intends to set out more guidance but only a very small percentage of disposals lead to an order (0.02%). Enforcement is not always successful also. She is not sure of the extent of the Judge’s knowledge of these Orders. She acknowledges that there is a low awareness of the victim’s code and that the Victims Commissioner has limited power. There is varying quality of support between localities. She acknowledges that they should be joined up and substantial funding for support services. She acknowledges that the Judge’s discretion to disapply the limitation is used widely but also used by Defendants to force settlement and that they should be looked at again.

Melissa Case and Linda Brown (Chief Executives of Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority)

The CICA statement was made at CIC00667. The CICA is a website based organisation now. It encourages applicants to apply as soon as possible. She acknowledges the difficulty if there is a criminal prosecution ongoing as the two year rule could be missed. It is acknowledge that the website needs simplification. It is acknowledged that help from a solicitor in challenging a decision can make challenges more effective. The point is made that an award has never been reduced due to budget but could be delayed. It is not anticipated that there is a political appetite to change the budget of the CICA and inflation costs are unlikely to change awards. The same rule for all is likely to change but has not yet happened. A change in the legislation will allow previous applicants to reapply but this depends on parliamentary time. The issue of convictions is a difficult one to resolve as it is heavily codified. The two applications in the Bryn Alwn litigation CIC00666_003 and IMQ001172_019 were brought to the attention of the CICA there was no comment. In questioning Professor Jay mentioned convictions in grooming cases e.g. Rotherham where Criminal Injuries Compensation has been denied.

13th December 2018

This was a day set aside for the hearing of evidence of Vincent Nichols in the Arch Diocese of Birmingham Investigation.

14th December 2018

Closing Statements as follows;

David Greenwood

Set outs of the Redress Scheme (Published on the www.childabuselaw.co.uk website in the news section)

Aswini Weeratene

Supports a Redress Scheme and points out criticisms with the Justice System.

Alan Collins (Solicitor)

It is down to chance that Claimants get good advice or compensation. He criticises the Criminal Injuries Compensation and Criminal Justice Orders. We need to see equal access and equal treatment regardless of which institution or offender is responsible. Apologies, counselling and payment needs to be forthcoming. It needs to be survivor focused. He advocates compulsory insurance for child sexual abuse allegations and that limitation should be abolished.

Mr Simblet (Counsel for North Wales Survivors)

He explains the inequality of chances within the Civil Justice System depending on who the insurer or Defendant happens to be. He points out that insurers have an interest in reducing the numbers and value of claims and that insurers are in favour of the status quo. Insurers are only interested in money. He advocates a Redress Scheme.

Miss Allen (Representing Rob Balfour)

Mr Balfour gave evidence at John Allen’s trial and did a CICA claim himself. He runs a support group. He wants to see fully funded support groups with registration of all the counsellors and a Minister at Cabinet level to supervise responses to this inquiry. He wants the system of records preservation tightening.

Chris Jacobs (Barrister) for F48-F58

Mr Jacobs is still seeking apologies from some institutions. He complains that there is not a level playing field for Claimants vs Defendants. He wants limitation removed. The system is used a s deterrent and to reduce the value of volume of claims to be met by insurers. He feels the awards are too low and wants all awards to be revisited.

Adam Weitzman (Middlesbrough Borough Council – Barrister)

He makes the point that Middlesbrough Council have to be careful with public money and have to use the legal system as its guide but that the Council will review the position of the clients cases as Stanhope.

Chris Webb-Jenkins (Solicitor for MMI)

MMI wants to treat Claimants fairly and not to exploit Claimants. MMI is unable to take decisions based on morality or ethics has it has financial obligations. He paints an optimistic picture of civil litigation and how it resolves cases. He raises limitation in most cases as they are at least 25 years old.

Mr Plemming (barrister for Zurich)

Where it can Zurich pursues a limitation defence. It is up to an individual institution to decide whether it wants to apologise. Zurich uses the law to guide its approach.

Mr Hoff (Barrister for RSA)

He defends RSA’s approach as using the law to defeat cases. He wants the Limitation Act to continue and is critical of any redress Scheme.

Mr Sheldon (The Ministry of Justice and Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority)

He agrees that limitation needs to be looked at again and recognises the importance of apologies. The review of the CICA system is underway. He advocates tinkering around the edges with the present system.

END