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.


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.


IICSA Accountability and Reparations Inquiry Opening submission of David Greenwood on behalf of Peter Robson.

INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE Accountability and Reparations Inquiry Opening submission of David Greenwood on behalf of Peter Robson.

  1. My colleagues and I have spent a fair part of our careers together debating these issues to find ways to improve the system. We have lobbied, campaigned, met opponents, used the law and the press to highlight the plight of our brave clients.

2. I have represented many survivors of child sex abuse who have for varying reasons been unable to recover compensation. Of course many have succeeded as they have found good and dedicated lawyers or have encountered benign opponents. Most who have been thwarted find themselves impeded by archaic laws on limitation, an uninsured defendant or an inability to put themselves through the immense pressure of litigation. 3. We must acknowledge that most survivors of child sexual abuse don’t come forward at all. They stay in the shadows, with their box of bad memories firmly shut, fearing the consequence of its opening. The present system doesn’t make it any easier for these individuals to speak up. We need to find a way for these survivors to participate in ways of achieving better quality of life. A redress scheme would be a start.

4. Defendants (usually their insurers) will say they didn’t bargain for having to meet claims when, many years ago, they agreed to look after a child, employed a care worker or agreed to insure an organisation. In a famous case in the Supreme Court in 2012 Lord Phillips explained that the organisation’s creation of the risk of child abuse is a very significant factor in the test for establishing responsibility. Despite this case insurers have still been able to use their deep pockets to create a hostile environment for Claimant litigants.

5. Resistance and prevarication of insurers doesn’t alter the fact that we need to find a way to help survivors get to their feet, find support and a decent quality of life.

6. The various Inquiries are likely to find that all institutions examined have turned a blind eye to child abuse or have done the minimum required by the (inadequate) law. My vision which is shared by numerous survivors and lawyers is for heavier regulation of organisations looking after children and to provide redress.

7. My recommendations to achieve better practice, accountability and redress are :-

8. The creation of a new independent statutory body to enforce basic standards of safeguarding, and to receive and deal with complaints of child sexual abuse in all institutions which are responsible for the care of children.

9. This new statutory body would police and enforce minimum national standards of child-safeguarding. This body would have similar powers to the Health & Safety Executive. The Health & Safety Executive operates for the safety of workers. Children are an even more vulnerable group. The absence of a powerful statutory body dedicated to their protection is a serious defect.

10. The new independent statutory body will: a. Establish a register of relevant Institutions that look after children. b. It will be an offence to look after children without being on the register. c. To be on the register institutions have to introduce a corporate structure. d. Registered institutions will be forced to adhere to minimum safeguarding regulations. e. The body will have the power to prosecute regulated organisations for breaches of these regulations (similar to prosecutions by the Health & Safety Executive). Fines will be imposed. f. All complaints are to be passed to the independent body by a receiving institution with a criminal sanction for failing to do so. g. The body will gather information from complainants, regulated institutions and third parties. It will have the power to compel disclosure of material. h. It will liaise with and assist civil authorities such as the police and social services. It would ensure the police and other statutory organisations are taking appropriate action within reasonable timescales. It will have the power to compel the police to investigate and refer cases to the CPS. i. It will provide coordinated support to victims, particularly those required to give evidence. j. The body will investigate the complaint using the balance of probabilities as the standard of proof. There will be no statute of limitations. It will have the power to make an award of compensation, similar to the CICA. It will decide the support to be offered to the complainant. A scheme will be established to provide adequate compensation for victims of child sex abuse which takes into account the effect on quality of life and a series of relevant factors (as opposed to the rigid CICA system). k. Complainants will be allowed to take advice from lawyers and a contribution towards legal costs will be awarded. l. The cost of the body’s work, support, reparations and legal costs are to be paid from a levy on the institutions with those found culpable paying the costs of dealing with individual cases in which they are involved. m. It will provide to Government regular reports on its progress and, inter alia, the extent to which its activity is promoting the UK’s obligations under the UN convention on the Rights of the Child.

11. The only submissions which Peter Robson has to make at this stage are that his experience of the CICA system has been that he has found it technical and disheartening, having been turned down for compensation. His case is currently under review. He has found the system complicated and cumbersome. He has been offered no professional support before being in touch with solicitors.

12. Additionally Peter finds the idea of civil proceedings with the commitment to potentially 3 years of legal wrangling off-putting. He suggests a system of no fault compensation along the lines of the CICA system but one which is less complicated and more suited to people of his socio-economic group with poor education and life chances. He would benefit from support and it is only by luck and persuasion that he received 8 sessions of counselling from a third sector organisation in Middlesbrough. He has at various times needed support with practical issues of housing and benefits.

13. The role of the police and CPS is worthy of note. A thorough investigation can not only achieve justice in the criminal justice system but will lay the foundations for good civil justice. In my view the decision making process within the various police forces and CPS offices requires scrutiny. I have experience of mixed decisions having been made by police and CPS. There appears to have been variation depending on resourcing, education and willingness of senior officers to commit to relatively complex inquiries.

14. The ability to challenge police and CPS decisions is not publicised. In relation to decisions made prior to June 2013 a panel now exists to enable decisions to be reviewed. This is little known among even lawyers. Post June 2013 the “Right to Review” legislation effectively allows the CPS complete discretion as to whether to change its own decision. The statistics (if obtained by the Inquiry) on successful challenges to CPS decisions would be of interest.

15. This Inquiry is considering particular case studies. Many more examples of very bad practice have and will emerge and are worthy of full inquiry. We ask the panel to recommend that the Inquiry’s work is extended indefinitely to allow the investigation of other institutions.

David Greenwood (Solicitor for Peter Robson)

19th November 2018

IICSA Accountability and Reparations closing submissions from David Greenwood


Accountability and Reparations Hearing

November 2018 to December 2018


Closing Statement by David Greenwood on behalf of Core Participant Peter Robson

  1. Mr Robson is a survivor physical and sexual abuse at The Stanhope Castle School, having been sent there at the age of 11. He describes it as a brutal place which has left him hating himself and as we saw from his evidence has left him with great difficulties in relating to others. He has diminished life chances, received a poor education and is deserving of compensation. He gave evidence to the police after 2013 but was told that his abuser could not be traced. He was advised by the police to seek Criminal Injuries Compensation and did so when he became aware of this Inquiry and was advised to do so by Howe & Co. His Criminal Injuries Compensation Application has been refused and it is only after a review that he has recently been awarded Criminal Injuries Compensation.
  2. He has been advised on a potential Civil Claim but at present feels that the process would be so long, complicated and arduous that he does not wish to put himself through it.
  3. Quite apart from apologies and bringing abusers and those who have enabled them to account this Inquiry has revealed serious deficiencies with our compensation system.
  4. Criminal Compensation Orders through the Criminal Courts are rarely ordered by Judges.
  5. Criminal Injuries Compensation is difficult to access. Form filling puts off the uneducated. Lawyers take a cut. Time limits are usually invoked by the Criminal Injuries Compensation. Convictions (often brought about as a result of responses to abuse and bad treatment in childhood) are used to defeat applications. Review and Appeal procedures are complicated and time limited. There is no integrated system of support. There is no free advice service.
  6. Civil Compensation are inherently difficult. Changes to the Law in 2013 mean that Lawyers again take a cut and Legal Aid is usually unavailable. Limitation Laws are interpreted by inexperienced Judges who have absolute discretion. Most Defendants fight cases by using Limitation as a weapon. There have been no moves by Parliament to change the system. Claimants’ credibility is attacked during the exploration by Defendants of prejudice. To even consider that prejudice to a Defendant could outweigh the prejudice to a Claimant survivor of child sex abuse of not being able to bring a claim does claimants a massive injustice. The legal bar on limitation should be scrapped. It has caused substantial confusion and unnecessary misery. Claims should be decided on whether the abuse occurred. To add further insult psychiatrists unsympathetic to Claimants are deployed to attack Claimants’ credibility.
  7. Success is often dependent on which insurer an institution is insured with. Lambeth, Liverpool, National Children’s Home and Devon Council settled their cases. Conversely RSA rarely settle cases unless they have exhausted all legal avenues.
  8. The process is attritional. Many hear about it like Mr. Robson and decide not to pursue it. Many drop out during the process.
  9. Overall it is a lottery as to which opponent is insured with which insurance company and also a lottery in terms of the attitude of the Defendant. Councils tend to see the justice in recognising that compensating victims should be a priority. Insurers generally don’t There are exceptions such as Ecclesiastical and sometimes Zurich. It should be said that the quality of claimant lawyers also varies.
  10. All this is confusing to claimants. It needs to be simplified. The system is not fair. It needs to be fair
  11. The solution is for the establishment of a scheme which incorporates the following features;
    1. The eligibility for compensation is decided on the balance of probabilities.
    2. Time limits will not be in play.
    3. Damages are assessed broadly, taking into account how life chances have been affected.
    4. Claimants can be signposted to good local support agencies and support can be paid for and provided quickly.
    5. The abuser or the institution will pay for the compensation paid to the Claimant.
    6. Where non-institutional abuse is considered, payments will be underwritten by the Government (these cases falling out of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme).
    7. Lawyers will be paid to advise on cases and help guide Claimants through the process.
    8. There will be an appeals system.
    9. Institutions will be required to consider providing an apology and will be required to make a statement of what steps are now in place to prevent child abuse in their organisation.
    10. The Body will have the power to compel disclosure of evidence.
    11. Claimants will have the option of taking their case through the Civil Courts but without double recovery.
    12. I have put together a draft scheme which will be emailed to the Inquiry Solicitors for distribution.  I hope you will read and consider the draft.
    13. David Greenwood
    14. 12 December 2018

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS RC Archdiocese of Birmingham 16th November 2018





  1. We act for A31-A33, instructed by Switalskis. Two were victims of James Robinson. The other of Eric Taylor. You heard evidence from A31. All have campaigned tirelessly for justice. The Church opposed them for decades.
  2. Our submissions are:
  3. The Archdiocese of Birmingham has proved to be a deceitful and malign institution. It is has proved to have little understanding of how to protect children in its care. Successive top level staff have ignored and covered up allegations. Jane Jones with her dubious views on child protection was recruited to do the Archbishop’s bidding keeping matters in house wherever possible. We reject the excuses and apologies and emphasize the impediments to self-governance presented by:
  1. Catholic teaching;;
  2. Its hierarchical structure;
  3. Its culture;
  4. Its unincorporated status.
  1. We recommend, in summary:
  1. Mandatory reporting as recommended by the MANDATE NOW campaign group.
  2. 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.


  1. You have seen 78 reported cases in Birmingham [INQ002763]. In Robinson’s case he was sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment for offences committed over decades. There were at least six victims. I do not know if that sentence is a record for the many perpetrators you have heard in the course of this Inquiry. It is a sentence reserved in our society only for the gravest crimes.
  2. The Dioceses’ response must be measured against the seriousness of what they knew or suspected these priests had done. Robinson’s sentence is a measure of the sort of criminal that the Catholic church has harboured, protected and supported.
  3. You heard from A31 that he had ‘confessed’ as a child to the sexual abuse in the confessional. You heard how Robinson then ‘vanished overnight’ to Newcastle-Under-Lyme. The ‘seal of the confessional’ was apparently breached to protect Robinson and the Church.
  4. Later, Robinson was allowed to make a new life in California, probably after the police tipped the Church off about A31’s allegations in 1985. He was given a stipend of £800 a month, paid to him in a circuitous, difficult-to-trace way.
  5. Despite A31 obtaining and providing to the police a compelling tape recording of Robinson, the police refused to pursue the matter further in 1995. It is deeply concerning that Robinson felt able to implore the Vicar General Leonard, at the time to use his influence with the police to stop any investigation [CHC000246_127] (probably 11/10/95).
  6. It took a BBC investigative journalist to help track Robinson down in 2003. Archbishop Nichol’s response was not gratitude, but fury at what he took to be anti-Catholic bias. The IOPC only decided to investigate the police’s actions at the start of this Inquiry. Three-years in the making,  the report is cursory and superficial. DI Higgins refused to cooperate. The IOPC investigation has exposed serious short-comings with the agency and the police complaints legislation.
  7. These men, these damaged men, have had to fight for right, largely on their own and against formidable opponents. Many others will have been broken before they got any sort of justice. These are only some of the cases that we know about. Many others will have been successfully covered-up or dealt with internally in closed ecclesiastical courts.
  8. Despite Robinson’s conviction in 2010, he was only defrocked in February 2018. A31 [and the others?] has yet to receive a penny in compensation. Anybody involved in litigation with the Catholic church will know how hard they fight even the clearest cases. Any technical defence available to the Church is seized upon and argued to the bitter end. You will look around this room and note the eminent counsel deployed on the Church’s behalf. When it comes to the Church’s interests, no expense is spared. When it comes to the victims of their most heinous crimes, parsimony.
  9. You have heard i) how hard COPCA and the Safeguarding Commission had to fight for resources ii) how Jane Jones would put money from speaking engagements into the pot  iii) how badly paid the staff were compared to their professional peers  iv) the reliance on volunteers, part-timers’ and agency staff. It is hardly surprising  – and perhaps it was the intention – that only devout Catholics were likely to take these posts. In Jane Jones’ case it resulted in a biddable amateur with – to the Church – agreeable views on the nature of child abuse as Child Protection Coordinator in Birmingham. This was a ‘Safeguarder’ who committed to paper and circulated her views that ‘The first victim was [the abuser] himself.’ This was a ‘Safeguarder’ who never did, and was never likely to, challenge the authority of His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols. This was a ‘Safeguarder’ who refused, point-blank, to provide the name of a suspected abuser to COPCA despite clear and repeated requests to do so. Her answer to why she refused was simply that that was what the Commission had resolved. This was the Safeguarder who took exceptional umbrage at failing Adrian Child’s audit.
  10. You have also heard how Cardinal Nichols was, despite the obvious conflict of interest, both chair of COPCA and Archbishop of one of the most scandal-ridden Dioceses in the country. You have heard how he was seemingly unable to get his own Diocese to comply with what Eileen Shearer said were the clear national policy requirements of the Church. COPCA was powerless to do anything about it.  The Church instead cavilled about the meaning of a ‘volunteer’, the use of the word ‘compliance’  and tried to chisel away at policies they regarded as too onerous.
  11. That is, in the opening words of Counsel to the Inquiry,  the ‘uncontroversial’ background. ‘Uncontroversial’ because that background is not, and could not be, controverted. But it remains one of the most scandalous accounts of cover-up in the Catholic Church – that we know about.
  12. You will understand that when His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols writes that, “I wish to express my profound distress and sorrow for these repeated acts of evil committed in our Church”, the victims wonder at the sincerity of it; that when he writes, ‘We have not always understood the dynamics of the abusers, the web of deceit and manipulation which create to imprison a victim’, he understands only too well because the Church was a party to that deceit and manipulation; that when he says he offers ‘no excuses’, he knows the Church has ducked responsibility at every turn.
  13. Inferences
  1. This uncontroversial background demonstrates:
  1. The Church will go to extreme lengths to protect even the most heinous abusers and cover-up;
  2. A lack of will, even to this day, to do the right thing by those they know to have been victims of the most serious abuse;
  3. A willingness to admit only that which is incontrovertible;
  4. A willingness to pay lip-service only – and sometimes not even that –  to their own national policies and guidelines;
  5. That the leaders of the Church – even if I am wrong about all that – are incapable of imposing any good will they may possess. The structure of the Church means that every Bishop and head of religious is accountable, ultimately, only to himself. That is why Cardinal Nicols writes, ‘Persuasive cooperation is more of the manner of working in the Church. Conformity is not easily achieved, but convinced cooperation is more effective in the long-run.’ That is essentially an admission that leaders of the Church have great influence, good or ill, but little real power over its members.
  1. As the SCIE audit concluded only a month ago, “the gap between [the vision] and a safe, reliable safeguarding system functioning across the Archdiocese is stark’ and ‘A radical culture change is needed’.
  2. But it will not come from within. The Church is institutionally incapable of self-reform. When this Inquiry is over and the Catholic church vacates its current hot-seat, who can trust that it will not revert to type?
  3. None of this is new to you with respect to the Catholic Church. You concluded your executive summary into Ampleforth and Downside with David Molesworth’s contemporary assessment on those schools “‘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.” The same applies here.
  4. There must be an end to the special pleading that the Catholic Church is a special case requiring special treatment. There must be one set of national standards for all with real sanctions for breach. We do not see how ‘name and shame’ could possibly be described as the ‘nuclear option’. That is the very least that is required.In 1985 A31 reported to police and to his local priest. Police met his complaint with an allegation that he was attempting to blackmail Robinson and gave his statement to the Vicar General. The police told his Father to keep him quiet. Within 2 days Robinson was out of the country. We do not know what the police did with A31’s tape recording in 1985 but his statement was passed to the Vicar General allowing Robinson to escape. The police had been recruited as an agent for the church just as Jane Jones would be in subsequent years.

Mandatory reporting

  1. A new law should require professionals who work with children in ‘Regulated Activities’ to inform the LADO (‘Local Authority Designated Officer’) or, in appropriate circumstances, children’s services, where the professional knows, suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting child abuse or sexual abuse by those in a position of trust. We support and promote the work of www.mandatenow.org
  2. Strong laws should lead cultural change. In the absence of a legal requirement to report those staff who do report presently are, by default, whistle-blowers with very little protection. Without strong laws any institution – no matter how benign its culture – is vulnerable to a powerful person within that organisation acting without integrity.Mandatory reporting must make no exception for the confessional. We have seen in this case how the seal of the confession was gladly broken to relocate Robinson in Newcastle-Under-Lyme.

New statutory body

  1. The creation of a new independent statutory body to enforce basic standards of safeguarding, and to receive and deal with complaints of child sexual abuse in all institutions which are responsible for the care of children.
  2. This new statutory body would police and enforce minimum national standards of child-safeguarding. This body would have similar powers to the Health & Safety Executive. The Health & Safety Executive operates for the safety of workers. Children are an even more vulnerable group. The absence of a powerful statutory body dedicated to their protection is a serious defect.
  3. The new independent statutory body will:
  1. Establish a register of relevant Institutions that look after children.
  2. It will be an offence to look after children without being on the register.
  3. To be on the register institutions have to introduce a corporate structure.
  4. Registered institutions will be forced to adhere to minimum safeguarding regulations.
  5. The body will have the power to prosecute regulated organisations for breaches of these regulations (similar to prosecutions by the Health & Safety Executive). Fines will be imposed.
  6. All complaints are to be passed to the independent body by a receiving institution with a criminal sanction for failing to do so.
  7. The body will gather information from complainants, regulated institutions and third parties. It will have the power to compel disclosure of material.
  8. It will liaise with and assist civil authorities such as the police and social services. It would ensure the police and other statutory organisations are taking appropriate action within reasonable timescales. It will have the power to compel the police to investigate and refer cases to the CPS.
  9. It will provide coordinated support to victims, particularly those required to give evidence.
  10. The body will investigate the complaint using the balance of probabilities as the standard of proof. There will be no statute of limitations. It will have the power to make an award of compensation, similar to the CICA. It will decide the support to be offered to the complainant. A scheme will be established to provide adequate compensation for victims of child sex abuse which takes into account the effect on quality of life and a series of relevant factors (as opposed to the rigid CICA system).
  11. Complainants will be allowed to take advice from lawyers and a contribution towards legal costs will be awarded.
  12. The cost of the body’s work, support, reparations and legal costs are to be paid from a levy on the institutions with those found culpable paying the costs of dealing with individual cases in which they are involved.
  13. It will provide to Government regular reports on its progress and, inter alia, the extent to which its activity is promoting the UK’s obligations under the UN convention on the Rights of the Child.

Standing Inquiry into institutional failures in child abuse

This Inquiry is considering particular case studies. Many more examples of very bad practice have and will emerge and are worthy of full inquiry. We ask the panel to recommend that the Inquiry’s work is extended indefinitely to allow the investigation of other institutions.



16th November 2018


IICSA RC Archdiocese of Birmingham evidence summary 20-16 November 2018

12-16th November 2018
Evidence summary David Greenwood (representing RC-A31, RC-A32, and RC-A33)

Monday 12th November 2018
Counsel to the Inquiry (“CTI”) Jacqueline Carey set out the structure of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. There are 5 Archdioceses, Birmingham, Cardiff, Liverpool, Southwark and Westminster. The Birmingham Archdiocese is the largest with 250 parishes. Former Archbishops are :-
1947-65 Francis Grimshaw
1965-81 Gerard Dwyer
1982-99 Maurice Couve de Murville
1999-09 Vincent Nichols
2009-present Bernard Longley
There are also 65 separate Orders of Religious in the diocese.
The Nolan report in 2001 made recommendations on safeguarding. In 1994 Gerry McArdle was placed in charge of child protection for the diocese. Prior to this the Archbishop would deal with allegations. Nolan recommended that statutory authorities should be notified immediately when an allegation was received.
In around 2002 COPCA was established with Eileen Shearer as its head. She tried to introduce nationwide standard policies. COPCA’s successor, CSAS, did an audit of Birmingham in 2010 and found its paperwork needed improving.
The Nolan report was reviewed by Baroness Cumberledge in 2007. She asked CSAS to provide annual reports and asked it to re-commit to the paramountcy principle of putting the interests of children first.
In Birmingham in 1997 a Commission was established, now called the safeguarding Commission. Despite the existence of the Commission the Archbishop can still decide to ignore CSAS advice on how to deal with allegations.
A child protection co-ordinator, Jane Jones, was placed in post in 2003. He or she should liaise with survivors and deal with perpetrators. The co-ordinator is accountable to the Archbishop. What oversight and support was provided to Jane Jones?
A major difference of opinion arose between the national advice body COPCA and Jane Jones. Eileen Shearer of COPCA asked for the names of perpetrators before giving advice but Jane Jones refused to provide them. The Archbishop Vincent Nichols was aware and content with the impasse. Why the secrecy?
The Inquiry has identified four case studies; Samuel Penney, James Robinson, Tolkien, and F167.
Only Robinson and Penney have been convicted. A schedule of allegations will be published on the IICSA website at INQ002763. 78 Individuals are accused. Some are dead.
Samuel Penney
Born 1939 Ordained 1967. Charismatic, engaged with children in youth groups and trips. Abused at least 7 children. Convicted in 1993 and imprisoned for 7 ½ years. Laicised in 2006.
In 1980 a headmistress at the primary school to which he was allocated complained that he was interfering with the school. He was taking children into secret interviews and became abusive when he was confronted about this. In 1984 a mother said that Penney had made an inappropriate suggestion to her son. In 1986 Penney was arrested. No police documents exist of that arrest and neither Penney nor the police told the church that he had been arrested. In 1990 parents complained that Penney had abused their son. The Vicar General, Daniel Leonard, was told it is not known what action was taken. In 1991 a complainant, Mr Flanagan, told Bishop Pargeter that he had been abused by Penney (document CHC001507_024). The complaint was made in July 1991. The Bishop wrote to Mr Flanagan and said he had dealt with it. Penney was sent to a retreat house in Scotland then in 1991 to a house at Heringbrooke. He was treated. It was not secure. Penney was free to leave and actually returned to his local parish where he abused A357 when Penney had been invited into his home by the family. In May 1992 Penney was treated at the Gracewell Institute. In 1993 he was convicted and sentenced to 7½ years in prison. He was given financial support by the Archdiocese throughout until 2015.
James Robinson
On the 22 October 2010 James Robinson was found guilty of offences of buggery and indecent assault. He was sentenced to 21 years in prison. There were four complainants and two other victims who gave evidence. RCA31 had tried hard for more than two decades to bring him to justice. In 1985 some members of the church helped Robinson to leave the UK to go to California after an allegation had been made by RCA31. Robinson was a professional boxer. He rode a motorbike. He attended Oscott College. He applied but was rejected from the Diocese of Miami in 1975. He was ordained in 1971. There were concerns about Robinson in 1972. A347 told a friend that he had been abused by James Robinson. This friend was A337. He had been abused by Eric Taylor and told the church on the plight of A347. These abuse experiences were reported to Canon McCarthy and Sister Bernadette at Father Hudson’s home. David Mason and Karen Coine at the home received the complaints also it is not clear what action was taken.
RCA31 states that he complained to a number of priests in confession before 1985. In 1980 A337’s aunt became suspicious of Robinson. A337 returned from accompanying Robinson to a Coventry City Football match and he said that he did not want to see Robinson again and was upset. His aunt confronted Robinson. Robinson wrote a letter to A337 at CHC000611 during the period his aunt was keeping him away from Robinson. The letter was passed to Father Hanlon. Father Hanlon described it as a funny little letter (its contents show that Robinson was trying to be very persuasive in bringing A337 back into contact with him in order that he could sexually abuse him). Father Hanlon did not report the letter to the police. In autumn 1984 Robinson had been ill and a doctor recommended that he have a less stressful environment.
On the 5 May 1985 RCA31 attended Digbeth Police Station to report his complaint of abuse from Robinson. RCA31 went straight to see Father Grady at Smallheath. Father Grady said he would meet with Daniel Leonard. Father Grady said that Daniel Leonard was upset and angry. Father Grady learned the next day that Robinson had gone to the States. Father Grady felt upset and angry.
On the 7 May 1985 RCA31 had secretly tape recorded a conversation he had with Robinson in a local park in which Robinson admitted his relationship with RCA31 from the age of 10 to 16. One copy was given to the police which was subsequently lost. A copy was given to friends. We have a transcript of the conversation.
On the 8 May 1985 RCA31 told his parents. RCA31 has complaints about how the police handled his complaint to put it mildly. He believes his complaint was not taken seriously in any sense in that he was actually accused himself of blackmailing Robinson. Daniel Leonard, the Vicar General, wrote to RCA31’s father in a defensive tone (document INQ002478). Robinson was shipped out of the UK with the help of the Vicar General and Archbishop. In October 1985 Daniel Leonard wrote to his counter-part in California (letter CHC000246_044). In the last paragraph Daniel Leonard admits that Robinson was moved as a result of the allegation made by RCA31. The Los Angeles Diocese was not keen to keep Robinson but Archbishop Couve de Murville urged them to hang onto him. In 1986 Robinson wrote to the Los Angeles Diocese (CHC000246_287) denying the abuse and accusing RCA31 of being a “mentally ill Homosexual”. Daniel Leonard also wrote on the 6 February 1986 to the Los Angeles Diocese providing more cover for Robinson and a good reference.
In 1993 Archbishop Couve de Murville wrote to the Archbishop of Los Angeles admitting that the relationship between Robinson and RCA31 had taken place. In the same year the Archbishop of Los Angeles removed Robinson from his parish. Robinson at the same time requested financial assistance from Daniel Leonard, the Vicar General. This was paid from Parish funds and reimbursed from Diocesan funds.
In 1995 RCA31 tried to get the police to reopen their investigation but was rebuffed. In 1997 Robinson came home twice to see his mother and tried to contact Archbishop Couve de Murville without success. In 1999 another victim came forward. Father McArdle asked police to arrest Robinson. In December 2000 there was another request for police investigation. There was a police investigation in 2002. West Midlands Police discovered that documents relating to the 1985 complaint had been passed by the police to the Archdiocese. It is suspected that DI Higgins gave them to the church to help them expel Robinson from the church.
The Archbishop wrote to Robinson (CHC0001044_090) asking him to return. Robinson replied, denying the abuse and refusing to return from Los Angeles.
In October 2003 a journalist, David Baxter, and Paul Kenyon had put together a BBC documentary “Kenyon Confronts”. The programme makes confronted Robinson in a trailer park in Los Angeles about the abuse. Vincent Nichols put out a press release stating that the BBC was hostile to the Catholic Church and tried to stop the publication.
In 2007 extradition laws changed and it was easier to bring back Robinson. He was convicted in 2010.
In 2015 Archbishop Longley was involved. Robinson agreed to be laicised. Rome was informed and he was laicised in February 2018.
Throughout this period both RCA33 and RCA31 tried to persuade West Midlands Police to investigate the case without success. It was eventually taken up in 2016 by the IOPC. It is not in dispute that someone provided the church with the police statement. The question has to be asked why did they assist the church. It is suggested that we cannot know for sure (the writer’s suggestion is that officers of the West Midlands Police were assisting the church to help Robinson evade justice by getting him out of the country before he could be arrested). At best this is an extreme negligence by the officers concerned and at worst it is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It is suggested that the IOPC and the West Midlands Police itself have each failed to critically analyse the behaviour of West Midlands police officers.
Father Tolkien
Born in 1917 and ordained in 1946. He is the son of the author named Tolkien. He was abusing in the 1950s and 1960s and died in January 2013.
The complainant, Christopher Rooney (name changed to Carrie) complains of abuse at Tolkien’s presbytery. Tolkien was reported in October 1993 to Couve de Murville (document CHC000253_021) but Mr Rooney says Tolkien continued to work in the church.
In November 2000 Mr Carrie wrote a book named Kloneit, an anagram of Tolkien and at that point I asked the police to investigate. West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service no longer had their papers from 1993 and in 2002 Crown Prosecution Service decided it was not in the public’s interest to proceed. Mr Carrie started a civil claim.
In June 2002 A348 wrote to Vincent Nichols to say that he had been abused by Tolkien. Vincent Nichols advised A348 to go to the police. Archdiocesan solicitors spoke to two other men and they were advised to pursue civil action and it appears that the Archdiocese were aware of Tolkien’s abuse of scouts in 1968 and the case was settled for £15,000. A343 brought a civil action and is angry at how the church defended his civil claim so strongly when they were aware of Tolkien’s abuse in 1968.
F167 was a teacher in 1985. There was an allegation that he had touched boys at his school. He left his teaching job and applied to become a priest in 1987. He was ordained in 1990. Two boys later went to the police and F167 was put on leave. In 1997 criminal proceedings were stayed. F167 was appointed to a parish after 1997 with primary school. A safeguarding group asked for a psychological assessment but was inconclusive. In 1998 a complaint was made that F167 had asked inappropriate questions in confession. He categorically denied this but was put on leave fully paid between 1999 and 2007. In 2007 he decided to leave the Ministry and became a teacher with a clear CRB check. The case was considered in 2004 /2005 by Jane Jones who asked advice from Eileen Shearer at COPCA, the Catholic Advisory Service on safeguarding but Jane Jones would not provide his name and this led to disagreement about cross-referencing of names and a requirement to provide COPCA with names.
The Diocese decided that he should be allowed to resign and the case was closed.
Safeguarding in the Diocese
Reviews were carried out in recent years by Jan Pickles and SCIE.
Jan Pickles Diocesan Review
Revealed that priests were in a position of great power and ability to groom. They were able to take children on trips and priests had been moved between parishes when allegations had been made in the past. Legal advice tended to focus on the protection of the church. She found there was no risk assessment pro-forma of the status of any assessments was questionable. She also found that the Diocese needed a case management system as the paperwork and files were difficult to follow.
Jan Pickles Parish Review
Miss Pickles, an experienced safeguarding professional, visited parishes and found individuals in favour of safeguarding, priests being aware of risks and all said they would refer any allegations to the Diocesan Safeguarding Team but found that Jane Jones was under funded and demands on her were high.
SCIE Review
Found that there was good information sharing with the police, good and regular training and parishes thought highly of the safeguarding team.
Areas of concern were as follows:-
1. Policies of Birmingham did not adhere to CSAS policies.
2. There was no case management system and files were not well kept.
3. Safeguarding Commission in the Diocese did not provide scrutiny.
4. There was a tangible and explicit fear that those accused should remain anonymous.
5. Feedback from anyone using the service was not welcomed. Criticism of the team or the Diocese was not welcome.
6. The Archbishop Bernard Longley accepts SCIE’s concerns.

The Child Protection Coordinator, Jane Jones, has rejected these criticisms, views them as personal and has resigned.
Openings were then given by Slater and Gordon, David Greenwood on behalf of those represented by Switalskis, on behalf of D2, by David Enright on behalf of F48, F49, F53 and F59 who were at Crewe Court, Mr Hoarewell for the Archdiocese of Birmingham, Mr Mount for Jane Jones and Tanya Griffiths for Eileen Shearer and Adrian Child.
Tanya Griffiths remarked that the Diocese of Birmingham had serious problems. They included individual and organisational failures. COPCA and CSAS at national level did its best to help Birmingham but the Archdiocese of Birmingham failed to respond to the advice. Jane Jones of Birmingham saw CSAS as “secular outsiders”. Jane had the support of Vincent Nichols and Bernard Longley according to the 2010 Audit. Jane Jones complained that CSAS was non-Catholic and was telling her what to do. Jane Jones felt that CSAS was unjustifiably expensive. About Adrian Child’s findings in the 2010 Audit that there was lack of adherence to national standards, a lack of procedure and forms and the lack of governance, these all emerged from organisational failure which could not be laid entirely at the door of Jane Jones. Jane Jones was not qualified, was not supported by enough staff, was conflicted due to her developed Catholicism and was not properly managed.
Met Samuel Penney early in the 1980s. Penney was charismatic and magnetic. It fostered an environment of vibrancy. A15 considered him a friend. He chose special children to go on camping trips and stay overnight at the Presbytery. A15 stayed over on numerous occasions and slept in his own room. Penney encouraged him to call him Sam. In the 1980s they went away to Rhyll in Penney’s VW campervan. On the third night he was asleep next to Penney when he felt Penney’s hand run down his side. A15 brushed it off but on the fourth night A15 woke with Penney’s hands on his genitals. A15 pushed them away, turned over and the next day felt in his own mind that he had to try to deny that anything had happened. Penney the next day became aggressive and sullen. A15 wanted to maintain the friendship and didn’t tell anyone at home.
A week later he stayed over at the Presbytery and was asked by Penney to sleep in his room. Penney had a bed and there was a camp bed for A15. Penney asked him to get into bed with him and A15 said “I’m not like that”. He locked the bedroom door and tried to coax A15 into bed. Penney named other boys that had got into his bed. For two hours Penney tried to break him down and persuade him to get in. There was a point at which A15 almost gave in but he didn’t get into bed. Penney said eventually “I trust you are adult enough not to tell parents about this”. Within a couple of days A15 did tell his mum. His mum could tell something was wrong at a service and he left very quickly after the service at the church. A15 told his mum that Penney was gay. He didn’t tell her about the camping trip but he told her all about the bedroom. His parents got in touch with the Archdiocese quickly within a couple of weeks.
He was unsure what happened. In 1993 a letter came out of the blue from the BBC about the Everyman documentary. His mother was in the programme in silhouette. Couve de Murville was directly denying the report of his mother to Daniel Leonard. A15 was shocked and very surprised that an Archbishop who knows the truth would deliberately deny the truth. A15 later went to see Cardinal Hulme but said there was nothing he could do about Couve de Murville.
A15 had a strong faith from being a boy and had a sense of calling. He wanted to be a priest. He had an interview with an Archbishop. A15 told him he was part of the Penney complainants and the Archbishop told him “we don’t need to talk about that”. A15 became a curate. He landed in a parish where his predecessor had just been convicted of child abuse. Some parishioners were in denial about the priest and some agreed that it had happened. A15 apologised to the parish. In the early 2000s A15 met a woman and fell in love. He found the priesthood isolating and had a desire to have children. He left the priesthood. He recalls that in a seminary there were only three female teaching staff (nuns) and the rest were male. He recalls that when he was being taught, the Penney case and Couve de Murville’s denial was used as an example of how NOT to respond. Some seminarians’ did not engage well with this training, others took it in. He recalls being trained to report allegations to police and to help support victims but was not taught the impact of trauma on survivors. He still has a strong faith and believes in light, not shadow.
It was announced to the Inquiry that Vincent Nichols was unwell, had a doctor certify him being unable to attend on the 13 November 2018. It is suggested that Vincent Nichols gives evidence on the 13 December 2018.
13 November 2018
A31 was abused by James Robinson between the ages of 10 and 16. It started in 1970 and ended when A31 punched Robinson when he made an advance towards him at the age of 16. Robinson wrote to A31 a letter in 1974, essentially a love letter. A31 told priests in confessionals many times what he was doing with Father Robinson but did not tell his parents. He was from a family of Irish Catholics who had moved over to Birmingham in the 1950s.
In 1985 A31 had had no contact with Robinson for ten years and felt that he was old enough to tell the police. He arranged to meet Robinson in a local park and secretly tape recorded their conversation in which Robinson admitted the long standing relationship with A31 from the age of 10. The tape was used in the criminal trial in 2010 to convict Robinson.
There was no prosecution in 1985. In 1995 A31 asked West Midlands Police to investigate Robinson again. A31 received a letter from the police telling him that they did not see that the secret tape could stand up as evidence in court and A31 was rebuffed again.
In 2003 West Midlands Police looked at the case again and a letter from a detective, Sarah Bowen, recorded that the 1985 documents had been destroyed but that the police had passed his 1985 statement to the church. Relevant documents are OHY005312, INQ002478_015, INQ002478_019 and CHC000246_173.
A31 was shown a letter of forgiveness that he wrote to Robinson in 2013. A31 became upset at this and asked for a break in proceedings.
When proceedings resumed A31 explained that the forgiveness letter was recommended by his therapist.
A31 stated that the cover-up has systematically destroyed his life. A31 explained his work with David Baxter and Paul Kenyon on the Kenyon Confronts programme for the BBC in October 2003 entitled “Secrets and Lies”. A31 was “Mark” in the programme.
Vincent Nichols tried to stifle the story. Vincent Nichols has only ever replied to one email or letter from A31. This was in 2003 just before the Kenyon Confronts programme. Vincent Nichols offered to meet A31 to which A31 replied that he would meet Vincent Nichols but it would have to be on BBC news night.
A31 considers that the findings in the IOPC report of 2018 (released just before the start of this Inquiry) are preposterous. He explains that he has been complaining to the police and about the failure of the police to investigate for decades and that the IOPC investigation only started after he became a core participant.
RC-A343 describes sexual abuse at Cruden Court by a PE teacher who buggered him. He told a nun but was told by the nun that he should not lie and that he would rot in purgatory. He was beaten by the nun in front of the school assembly. He told no one of the abuse for forty five years until 2015. He reported it to the West Midlands Police but received no response.
RC-A1 RC-A493 (Read)
A1 was at Besford Court. He describes a teacher touching him. A swimming teacher touched him too. Also the caretaker paid him each week to allow him to sexually abuse him. A1 self-harmed by putting stinging nettles on his genitals and hit his own bottom with a stick. He reported the abuse to West Mercia Police in the 2000s but no prosecution took place. He asked again in 2018 for West Mercia Police to investigate again. There came a time when he asked for his Bedford Court records from Jane Jones, the Diocesan Child Protection Coordinator. He felt that Jane Jones was dismissive. She took him to a room in the cathedral and showed him records there. He saw a picture of himself as a boy and cried. His records were eventually sent to his home address. He burned them between 2005 and 2015 and got a new set when he approached a solicitor in 2017. He called Jane Jones in 2018 to give her more detail. He felt that she was being sarcastic and he shouted at her and passed the phone to his wife. He felt frustrated and upset at how the church had dealt with his complaint.
14 November 2018
Jane Jones Diocesan Child Protection Coordinator 2003 to present
Jane Jones was a woman in her fifties with dark shoulder length hair wearing a black top. She was evasive throughout her evidence to the point of treating the questions with contempt towards the end of questioning.
She was a qualified social worker and a committed catholic. She worked as a field social worker in Birmingham in the late 1970s until 1982. The emphasis was then on physical abuse. Since then she has lectured and taught in sociology. She became involved with the Columban Fathers to help them with their safeguarding supervision in the 1990s and was asked by Father McArdle of the Birmingham Diocese to write a paper on the Samuel Penney convictions in the 1990s. Following the Nolan Report in 2001 the Diocese wanted to recruit a child protection coordinator. They interviewed three people. Carmel Knowles got the job and Jane Jones was asked to support her. Carmel developed some problems and Jane Jones took over the role in 2005.
She was responsible for developing practice, advising the Archbishop, making referrals to the police, advising parishes, overseeing safeguarding agreements, coordinating support and advice to victims. It is a wide ranging role incorporating dealing with vulnerable adults and non-clergy abuses in parishes. Forty percent of the referrals she receives comes directly from the police.
Non-Diocesan orders of religious (there are sixty five of these in the Archdiocese of Birmingham) are asked to align themselves with the Diocesan Safeguarding Commission’s rules. Thirty have aligned. She was not certain how many others are considering becoming aligned or indeed how many others exist in the Archdiocese.
When asked about her supervision by Archbishop Vincent Nichols when he was the Archbishop she became evasive, giving unclear answers such as “I have no recollection of being unhappy about his direction. If there was a conflict between me and the Archbishop I don’t recollect it”. Jane Jones used evasive and non-committal language such as this throughout in answers.
When asked about Eileen Shearer and COPCA/CSAS her main criticism of Eileen Shearer was that she was from a “secular background”. Jane Jones thought that Eileen Shearer lacked the understanding of the structure of the Catholic Church. Jane Jones seemed to draw a distinction between the CSAS rules of reporting and language Catholics would deal with cases. When asked to explain all she could say was “the church is a body of believers”.
Eileen Shearer’s complaint that Jane Jones appointment was not advertised externally, that she did not fill in the necessary forms and did not have sufficient experience of child protection practice were refuted by Jane Jones.
She was shown a document in the COPCA Protocol which states “details of abuser and victim will be given to COPCA before COPCA can cross-reference and advise”. This was dated 03/02/04 document number CSA003225_0001.
There was dispute between Jane Jones and Eileen Shearer about whether Jane Jones should tell Eileen Shearer the name of the abuser and victim before Eileen Shearer could give advice. A letter from a COPCA employee to Jane Jones stated “you told me Archbishop Nichols was the person who advised you not to provide the name to COPCA”. Jane Jones replied that she did not have a clear recollection of her conversation with Vincent Nichols about this. Jane Jones stated that the Commission (the body in the Archdiocese of Birmingham which reviewed her work) advised her that she could seek advice without giving the name.
Eileen Shearer took up the issue with the Vicar General, Mr Moran. At this, Jane Jones became evasive stating that she did not recollect conversations and did not recollect a direction from Vincent Nichols about holding back the name. She did at least state that the Diocese is responsible for its own affairs and does not have to take orders from COPCA or CSAS.
Jane Jones was directed to an attempt by her to backtrack and suggest that when she was asking for advice she was asking a “policy query” rather than individual advice. In fact it was clear that she was asking for individual advice on this case. The case was actually F167’s case, the abuser who moved from being a teacher to a priest during the 1980s and 1990s.
Jane Jones then became evasive and blamed her decision making on being told not to release the names by the Commission. In fact there was evidence that Vincent Nichols had been the source of this advice.
There was mention that Adrian Child encountered the same problem with Jane Jones when he took over from Eileen Shearer in 2007 and COPCA was renamed CSAS.
Jane Jones suggested that the successor to Adrian Child, Collette Limbic at CSAS only asked for names on a case by case basis. It was shown that when referrals were made to the police or the LADO, names were given. She could not explain why they were not given to CSAS other than to prevent the generation of more records.
Jane Jones was shown documents at CHC001639_001 and _005 in which Vincent Nichols and she tried to excuse parish volunteers from having to have CRB checks on the basis that they are known within the parish.
She was told that Adrian Child viewed Jane Jones as being hostile after he had carried out the 2010 Audit. He described Jane Jones in CHC001464_004 at paragraph 66 as follows: “The attitude of Jane Jones was cynical and not conducive to making the church a welcoming place for all”.
She was questioned on her contact with A1 but denies being sarcastic or dismissive to him.
She was referred to document CHC001640_001 which was her position paper on Samuel Penney written in approximately 1993. She explained that it was intended for the eyes of only two or three people, that she was teaching when she wrote it. She recalls it was seen by Archbishop Couve de Murville who sent her a letter about this piece and that he felt it was a useful document. Within the document she seems to consider that abuse within a family is not necessarily a crime, that sexual activity in this context can be warm and comforting, that all the children are not as vulnerable as younger children and she speculated that one of the mothers in the Everyman programme in 1993 was fantasizing about having a sexual relationship with Samuel Penney. She states in the article that the first victim here is Penney himself.
This is a prime example of someone working for the church, putting the church and abusers first above the interest of victims.
She confirmed that Archbishop Couve de Murville, Bishop Budd and Bishop Longley knew about the briefing paper and approved it in around 2000. Anyone reading the paper would find it deeply disturbing. It should be published on the IICSA website. The person who holds these views should not be in a position of responsibility and safeguarding situation. There were other instances of her mentioning touching as a minor act of abuse essentially reducing the seriousness of particular cases.
In relation to the SCIE Report criticisms were:-
1. There is little evidence that CSAS Protocols were being used.
2. Policies and procedures of CSAS were not being used.
3. The recording system was fairly inadequate. There was no case management system.
4. The quality of response was good.
5. Contributors to the report (service users) suggested that the safeguarding team were more concerned with protecting the church and Jane Jones and senior clergy do not understand the harm done by abuse. Jane Jones response was “I hope I don’t have an ignorance about huge consequences of this evil”.
Jane Jones explained that she resigned a week ago as she feels that she has been side-lined in the preparation for IICSA since February 2018.
In questions, Alexis Jay, demonstrated that when Jane Jones assessed F167 as having no current risk, she could not have decided this. She also confirmed that she was not a registered social worker and has never been registered.
In questions from Drusilla Charplin she admitted that she now thinks she should have provided names of abusers and victims to CSAS so she changed her mind over a period of time.
In questions from Ivor Frank, Jane Jones agreed that the person supervising her was in fact a member of the Diocesan Safeguarding Commission (Sister Anna O’Connor).
15 November 2018
Eileen Shearer
A woman in her forties, dark hair, black jacket, self-assured. Statement document number INQ002671. Eileen Shearer was the Director of COPCA between 2002 and 2007. She was brought in to implement Lord Nolan’s report of 2001. Vincent Nichols was the Chair of COPCA.
Eileen Shearer explains that she had very strong opposition in Birmingham and there was overt hostility on occasions from some quarters. Some others did their best and wanted her to succeed. Her job was to unify safeguarding procedures throughout all Dioceses.
She felt that Vincent Nichols was generally positive. Birmingham had a regrettable history. Couve de Murville had not handled cases well. Vincent Nichols was a conscientious Chair of COPCA but did not put a real drive into to influencing others to adopt COPCA’s procedures and did not promote COPCA enough.
There was a police investigation into Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, arising from the Father Hill/Stanstead Airport case. Vincent Nichols was defensive and thought that COPCA had no role in this. Eileen Shearer thought that COPCA should have had a role. In the appointment of Jane Jones she confirmed that the process of the appointment was flawed, Jane Jones had been a social worker only pre-1982. The post was not advertised externally and she was a devout catholic. Eileen Shearer wrote to Vincent Nichols to complain about this that the appointment was not compliant with Lord Nolan’s recommendations. Vincent Nichols defended her appointment. Eileen Shearer felt that the Diocese had appointed her by tapping her on the shoulder rather than using an external process. Perhaps in this way the Diocese was able to use malleable and biddable people to do their work which included protecting the good name of the Diocese from scandal and protecting priests from prosecution.
Documents were shown to Eileen Shearer which charts the history of her writing to Vincent Nichols and explaining to him the reason why it is important for names of abusers and victims to be passed to COPCA. Eileen Shearer recalls that Vincent Nichols became unhappy when she started to ask questions about what was happening in the Diocese as he felt that she did not have a mandate to poke around in the Diocese. She explained that Vincent Nichols refused to step in to overrule the Commission on the issue of providing names. His excuse was that it would not be showing independence in his role. In reality the independence of Vincent Nichols on the COPCA Board was a sham in any case. Vincent Nichols comments that because F167’s case had been referred to the Education Authority and the police, Jane Jones had done her job, ignores the possibility that a central database at COPCA could have picked up abuse by F167 elsewhere and the police elsewhere may have been interested and assisted.
In questioning, Alexis Jay underscored the assistance which could have been provided if names had been provided and cross-referencing could have helped people elsewhere. In answer to Alexis Jay’s questions, Eileen Shearer stated that there had been problems elsewhere but problems were particularly acute in Birmingham.
In questions from Drusilla Charplin, cross-referencing point and assisting other statutory agencies was well made.
Adrian Child
A man in his fifties with thinning grey hair, wearing a dark jacket and tie and giving matter of fact delivery.
Adrian Child had been a social worker in the 1980s and became a Social Work Manager in the 1990s and Head of COPCA in 2007 after Eileen Shearer. It became CSAS after 2007. CSAS also experienced resistance from the Birmingham Child Protection Coordinator’s office in that they opposed having to be audited. He was required to audit every Diocese in the country. He recalls that Jane Jones was defensive about being audited. The main problems he found with the audit was that the files were jumbled and confused and case notes were poor. Two cases were sent off for review as they showed serious deficiencies.
He noted a later change in the approach from the Coordinator’s office and they became more willing to cooperate and constructive.
Adrian Child complained that in public the Diocese would say one thing but in practice do another. There was some discussion of the Diocese having put out an erroneous story to the press in the Leamington Spa Courier of the 7 July 2006.
Adrian Child did not think that Jane Jones met the specification for the Child Protection Coordinator’s role. Her experiences in safeguarding was not recent. Her relevant experience had been only in 1982.
Adrian Child had also met resistance to providing names of abusers and victims.
Adrian Child thought that the Commission was dysfunctional between 2003 and 2008 as Birmingham had not implemented any of the COPCA national policies during that period.
Adrian Child felt that “patronage militates against adequate safeguarding”. By this he meant that priests are dependent on their Bishop for money, housing and vocation and unless they get employment rights they will not speak out against their Bishop or those who influence him.
Adrian Child’s final point was that the focus here in on Birmingham. It is a good example of where things go wrong. Other Diocese do a lot of good work and across the church as a whole significant improvement has been made since before Nolan.
Collette Limbrick (CSAS) (Read)
She gives statistics on correspondence with Jane Jones. She feels that Jane Jones has had a positive attitude to safeguarding and makes a significant contribution to the training. She has not had any concerns about a disclosure of names and others require names on a case by case basis.

16 November 2018
RC-A494 (Read)
A494 was at Cruden Court in the 1960s. He tried to run away a couple of times. Each time he was brought back, stripped and hit with a leather belt by the nuns. He recalls Archbishop Dwyer visiting there at the time. He told Archbishop Dwyer about what the nuns had done to him. He recalls Archbishop Dwyer saying “the nuns wouldn’t do that”. He was then moved to Father Hudson’s home. A member of staff, F264 also caught him out of bed at Cruden Court at night and started to groom him, touch him but A494 rejected his advances.
In recent years he contacted Jane Jones for his records and told her about his experiences. He has been deeply affected by this.
The statements of RC-A15, Brian Hennessy, A32, A33, Amy Flanagan, A579 and David Mackle will be published on the IICSA website.
Bernard Longley (Archbishop of Birmingham 2009 to present)
He is a stout man with short greying hair, steel rimmed glasses, wearing a black suit, a dog collar and a black shirt. He has a slightly aloof manner.
In the 1970s and 1980s complaints of sexual abuse were taken by the Vicar General for a parish priest.
He agrees that he has ultimate responsibility for safeguarding in the Archdiocese of Birmingham and he will be free to disagree with CSAS policy. When pressed on this he gave a slightly evasive answer, explaining that policies initially conceived at the Bishop’s Conference (in reality polices are refined by CSAS who are responsible for ensuring that they are implemented nationwide).
He had a handover from Vincent Nichols when he took up his post and Vincent Nichols told him about Jane Jones being the Child Protection Coordinator.
He has appointed a CEO for the Diocese who was previously a Governor of Catholic Schools.
There was discussion of institutes and orders and how much control he could have over them (very little).
Cannon law was discussed and Bernard Longley agreed that “in safeguarding matters civil or criminal law takes precedence”. When pressed he said “I have never refused to accept a risk assessment on a priest so far as I can recall” (again an uncertain and slightly evasive answer).
He was challenged by being quoted the social work expert, Jan Pickles, view. She said “I was left in doubt as to whether Cannon law was more influential than criminal law in the Archdiocese. I found much more reference to the former than the latter in matters relating to priests about whom there were either allegations or concerns surrounding children”.
Bernard Longley was challenged as to why he wrote a “without prejudice” letter of apology to A491. He responded by saying that the letter was actually drafted by Jane Jones. He confirms that Jane Jones till drafts his letters but then changed his answer to saying that he usually drafts his own and then sends it to Jane Jones for amendments. He agrees that his apologies are not his own words but he agrees that this is not a caring response.
So we now know that the Archbishop of Birmingham does not use his own words to apologise to victims. He said he uses a devout catholic Child Protection Coordinator to draft his letters.
Bernard Longley acknowledged that this is a mistake. He also acknowledged that some mistakes have been revealed this week about the Archdiocese of Birmingham. He tries to apologise but Counsel to the Inquiry suggests that it may be too late. He responds “I hope it’s not too late”.
He tries to justify his actions by saying “as a charity, how do we hold together the legal requirements of a charity with a pastoral response?”. He goes on to say “I hope recommendations from the Inquiry will help”.
The Archdiocese clearly had no plans to change course. It continued to disregard very serious complaints from survivors of abuse, issuing insincere apologies and opposing claims for compensation with heavy handed legal tactics.
Care of Abusers
The Archbishop, Bernard Longley, admitted that Robinson had been paid £800 per month between 1985 and 2003. He also admitted that F167 had been paid between 1995 and the present day.
As a comment surely this is a great illustration of jobs for the boys/money for the boys.
Bernard Longley agrees that if a person is convicted before being laicised they would still receive payment until they are laicised. If they are not convicted before being laicised they would still receive pay until they are laicised. In fact the Archdiocese paid Penney for three years between his conviction and laicisation and Robinson between his conviction in 2010 until laicisation in 2018 and also Bede Walsh who was convicted in 2012 and is not yet laicised. There may be others.
He acknowledged that between the CSAS Audit in 2010 and 2016 when the Archdiocese of Birmingham was selected as a case study by IICSA, there was no audit or review of the quality of the Child Protection Coordinator Department to work and that this is a failing in addition to the failings pointed out in the Jan Pickles and SCIE reviews.
SCIE audit October 2018
It found :-
1) Recording systems were wholly inadequate. The paper trail was very poor.
2) In feedback from service users they described Jane Jones as hostile and interested most in protecting the church’s reputation. They felt marginalised and unsupported.
3) Potential whistle blowers feared retaliation. Priests and parish safeguarding reps felt unable to criticise the church for fear of losing their positions. Criticism is not welcome in 2018.
4) There is a gap between the official vision and the lack of a safe reliable safeguarding system functioning across the Archdiocese is stark”.
In response Bernard Longley plans to recruit a new child protection co-ordinator and the commission has devised a plan to meet the SCIE criticisms CHC001646-007
Questions from the panel revealed slightly evasive answers but he admitted he felt charitable status caused inhibition in responding better to victims. He also told the panel he was content with the advice he got from legal advisers.
Closing submissions were made by Slater and Gordon, Switalskis, D2 (Besford Court), Howe and Co, Mr Mant (for Jane Jones) and Mr Horwell QC OBE for the Archdiocese.
Vincent Nichols will give evidence on 13th December 2018 and written submissions can be submitted by 20th December 2018.
David Greenwood

OPENING STATEMENT – IICSA RC Archdiocese of Birmingham 12th November 2018




My remarks here are made against the background of what we already know about the Catholic Institutions examined as part of this Inquiry, how the church is organised into Dioceses, how orders come from Rome, the guidance given by Lord Nolan and Baroness Cumberledge, the evidence given in the Ampleforth and Downside Inquiry and indeed what that revealed about the reluctance of senior Catholics to share information with the police and their lack of engagement with outside agencies in relation to allegations of child abuse.

This particular Inquiry has only five days of evidence but we do know that there are a long list of identified abusers in the Archdiocese of Birmingham.

Numerous failures by the Archdiocese and West Midlands Police will be identified in the days to come. I know that my colleague, Richard Scorer, has dealt with the cases of Samuel Penny and Father Tolkien. I will deal here with the case of Father Robinson.

The way in which the Archdiocese of Birmingham dealt with Father Robinson paints a very disturbing image not only of denial and obfuscation by the Church but the clearest evidence of the Church protecting its good name and the perpetrator by sending him swiftly to another country. The Catholic Church regards itself as above the law. It has laughed at the rest of us mere mortals for decades. It has covered up, used lawyers and its recruits in state organisations to protect itself from disgrace. It has been facing disgrace now for more than two decades with the revelations of abuse and cover up coming thick and fast. This week will prove to be another week of utter disgrace for this deceitful organisation.

A letter from the Archdiocese in 1985 states in terms that Robinson was being sent across to California due to the allegations made by RC-A31(CHC000246_044). A draft statement of a priest to whom RC-A31 first reported in May 1985 records how the Vicar General Daniel Leonard arranged for Robinson to be moved from the country (CHC000246_116). You will recall we heard in the Downside Inquiry of the movement of Anselm Hurt to Ireland when an accusation of child abuse surfaced.

The Inquiry will have the opportunity to view evidence that the Archdiocese paid for Father Robinson’s upkeep in Los Angeles to the tune of £800 per month, the money initially coming from parish funds but then being reimbursed to the parish from the Diocese throughout the 1980s and 1990s. This was further concealed by it being channelled via his cousin through a Scottish bank account to which Robinson had access.

It has to be said that there is scant evidence in the papers of the Archdiocese disciplining him in accordance with its own rules from Rome until 2018. Why was this ?

You may hear evidence that Father Robinson denies that the allegation was reason for him moving to Los Angeles and that it was actually his ill health that caused this move. This was a patent lie according to contemporaneous documents. You will no doubt hear obfuscation from Vincent Nichols and Bernard Longley. Their very careful use of language in press releases over the years has been designed to avoid admitting the truth of the matter which is that the Archdiocese has known about and protected its abusing priests. I ask you to pay attention to what these two men are not saying in their evidence. They will continue to distance themselves, the Archdiocese and their church from wrongdoing. You must see through this.

We have become used to uncovering this type of institutional cover-up in the Catholic Church and indeed the Church of England. It is of deep concern that we do not or may never know the true extent of concealment activity carried out in such an organised way by both Churches.

Perhaps the most grievous affront to children’s’ rights emerging from this case is the complicity of West Midlands Police which amounted to state protection of Father Robinson. On receiving RCA31’s complaint in 1985 he was not taken seriously. There was no thorough investigation of his serious allegations. He was instead accused of blackmail. West Midlands Police refused to accept a covert recording he made of Robinson admitting abusing him from the age of ten. The police suggested that it may not be genuine.       He was subjected to an unnecessary intimate examination with instruments. West Midlands Police carried out only a cursory investigation. It is unclear as to whether West Midlands Police even reached the stage of interrogating Diocese officials. No crime was recorded on the police system enabling Robinson to come back to the UK in 1997 before returning to Los Angeles.

What seems to have happened in fact is that police officers colluded with the Archdiocese officials by passing to them a statement made by RCA31, thus tipping off the Diocese and Robinson thus enabling him to live out his days in the sunshine in California (or so they thought).

I could catalogue the letters passing between RCA31 and RCA32 and the Archdiocese but I would need a few days to do so. Suffice it to say that these two men urged the Archdiocese to bring Robinson to justice throughout the 1990s and 2000s with no success, the Diocese throughout being defended vigorously by its lawyers whilst retaining the knowledge of Robinson’s admission and supporting him to the tune of £800 per month via a concealed route.

The position worsens when police conduct in the 1990s and 2000s was chalenged. Both RCA31 and RCA32 each attempted to have the case investigated properly throughout this period but were unsuccessful.

RCA32 attempted repeatedly to persuade West Midlands Police to investigate between 1998 and 2014. An investigation in 2007 by West Midlands Police revealed continued unwillingness to properly investigate the case and the complicity of the police in 1985.

In relation to RCA31 there was a failure by WMP to respond adequately in 1995 when he approached them again asking for a proper investigation. In total he provided West Midlands Police with detailed evidence which deserved to be investigated in 1985, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2009-10.

Why did it take West Midlands police 6 years from the BBC Kenyon Confronts documentary to investigate the case properly ? Wht did Vincent Nichols complain about the documentary to the BBC when he knew it had revealed the truth ?

It was only in 2009 that the position changed when Crown Prosecution Service authorised an application for an extradition warrant from California and Robinson was brought to trial. Many courageous survivors came forward to give evidence and Robinson was convicted in 2010 of offending against multiple individuals, some of whose abuse could have been prevented had the Archdiocese and the police responded well. We will never know how many children Robinson abused when living in California.

RCA31 and RCA32 have tried repeatedly to involve the police complaints system and their attempts to have the police complaints system operate in this case have exposed some truths about flaws in the system which enable the police service to protect itself from criticism and suggest that the rigour which should be applied to these investigations is lacking within the current IOPC. The most recent IOPC investigation, Operation Fennel, has been criticised by RCA31 as having been launched only as a result of the interest shown by IICSA in the investigation and of lacking serious intent.

The plight of another CP in particular, RCA33, deserves to be mentioned. He was abused by Robinson in the early 1960s whilst Robinson was still studying for the priesthood at Oscott College. RCA343 mentions that he went through theological college and was concerned at the attitude of other Ordinands and their motives for joining the priesthood. Oscott college was of course the college at which Pope Ratzinger spoke in 2010. It would be interesting to know what Rome knew about the college and its teaching when it seems to have turned out a significant number of clerics against whom allegations have been made.

RCA33 like many has devoted a good part of his life to this case. He has helped the police after 2010, gave evidence at the trial of Robinson but has not received any offer of compensation. He like many he is bitter and is hopeful that the IICSA will expose the facts of the case.

I am grateful to the Inquiry staff for their diligent work in obtaining the various documents and statements.

Finally, we should all acknowledge the bravery of the victims of abuse who have come forward in this and other investigations and the journalists such as Mr Kenyon who tracked down Robinson in 2002.

David Greenwood



Huddersfield Child Sexual Exploitation

Details of the Prosecution of 20 sex criminals in Huddersfield were released to the press on Friday 19th October 2018.
This large organised gang was able to rape and degrade girls as young as 11 in West Yorkshire from at least 2004 until 2015. This came despite parents reports to police and some of these girls being in the “care” of social services.
How could he police ignore these serious offences ? Why didn’t they use their powers to get these serious criminals off the street ? Was it due to a lack of resources , a lack of understanding, a lack of training or a lack of commitment ? We’re these girls categorised as being “out of control” or unworthy of intensive help and support ?
We need to know the answers. Only then will we be able to understand and disrupt the activities of organised exploiters.
We must not just assume the modus operandi of all Asian origin exploiters is the same. Rotherham has its fair share of criminals who used girls as a currency. There are reports that the culture and teachings of Islam gives West Yorkshire groomers a green light to attack white girls. Whatever the motivations we need to understand the background and motivation of them in the same way that suspected terrorists are analysed. The harm done is certainly comparable. After all a significant proportion of a whole generation of Rotherham women have been deeply affected by child sexual exploitation. We must do whatever we can to prevent it for the future. My sincere hope is that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse header by Prof Alexis Jay will dig deep and provide guidance in the coming years.
In the meantime what is clear is that both Social Services and the Police in West Yorkshire have dramatically failed significant numbers of vulnerable girls and their families. I have asked he council and the police to each commission independent inquiries into the scale of Child Sexual Exploitation and their organisational responses and failures.
I will also continue to pursue legal claims for compensation for all girls affected. These girls will need ongoing support and compensation will help.
David Greenwood heads a team of female solicitors who have successfully pursued cases against councils and police in Rotherham and Oxford. If you need to speak confidentially call 01924 882000 or e maildavid.greenwood@switalskis.com

IICSA Peter Ball investigation 23-27 July 2018


Peter Ball (Anglican) Investigation

23rd to 27th July 2018

23rd July 2018

Counsel to the Inquiry, Fiona Scolding QC explained the questions to be asked over the next few week. They are :-

  1. Why had Peter Ball (PB) escaped detection as an abuser before 1992 ?
  2. How did the church allow his scheme to run without supervision ?
  3. Why did he receive a caution rather than being prosecuted ?
  4. His lawyer was also the diocesan registrar – was there not a conflict ?
  5. Was it wrong for the diocese of Chichester to have employed Brian Tyler the private investigator ?
  6. Were the police put under undue pressure by prominent people ?
  7. Why could a Bishop have been free from any sanction from the church until 2016 ?
  8. Why was PB allowed back into public ministry and schools ?
  9. Why didn’t Lambeth Palace pass on letters it had received making similar complaints to Neil Todd to the police ?
  10. Was an internal church investigation in 1992/3 adequate ?
  11. Why did the CPS accept guilty pleas to lesser charges in 2015 ? Why was there no trial ?
  12. Would the church do the same again today ?
  13. What steps do the church, police and society need to take to prevent this happening again ?
  14. Is “grooming” widespread in the church ?

PB became Bishop of Gloucester in 1992. He had been suffragan Bishop of Lewes from the 1970s. In the 1960s he set up the community of the glorious ascension. He spoke at public schools and set up his “give a year to god” scheme in 1980.Boys heard about it through schools and joined. Vickery House (another abuser) supervised the “schemers”. Most were just over 18 years old. Some were sent there from school, one was under 16 when he went.

PB agreed to plead to misconduct in a public office in 2015 on the basis that he had used his public office to obtain sexual gratification, had convinced the schemer that their chances in the church would be greater if he engaged in naked touching and used the scheme to assist his offending behaviour. The abuse included naked touching, naked prayer, inciting a boy to masturbate in a counselling session, naked kneeling at a baptism, suggesting flinging off underpants as a sign boys would be free in religion, asking boys to massage him in the groin area, ejaculating in their presence, spanking and flagellation of boys. Indecent assaults included beating with a sexual motive. There were 32 allegations in total. 13 were under 18. 2 had still been in school.

PB ‘s offending was brought to light by Neil Todd, a schemer who was with PB at Gloucester. He complained of beatings and indecent assaults to the housekeeper and gardener, Mr and Mrs Moss who took Neil away on holiday to France with them in September 1992. On their return Neil was in a state of anguish and the Moss’s went to see the former Bishop of Gloucester, John Yates who had become the Archbishop of Canterbury’s staff Bishop. He told them “What do you expect me to do ?”

Neil eventually left Gloucester and went t work in a parish in Brixton where another former schemer looked after him but after Neil had tried to kill himself his parents stepped in and informed the police.

Here began a sorry tale…

These were turbulent times for the Anglican church. The ordination of women threatened to split the church. Charles and Di were splitting and then this…

At the same time as Neil Todd was speaking to the police about his abuse others were making complaints about PB’s behaviour. 4 letters were sent to Lambeth palace and were seen and responded to by George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury. John Yates advised Carey he would have to investigate the allegations in the letters and that PB may have to resign. Despite this advice Carey did not pass the letters to the police and sent a message to all parishes in Gloucester that they should pray that the case is resolved in PB’s favour. There was no mention of Neil Todd or the other complainants. Carey actually wrote to the Chief Constable of Gloucester police to say this type of behaviour is not in PB’s character.

Letters were written by the great and the good supporting PB and denying that he could have committed crime. These included letters from a Court of appeal judge and heads of public schools.

The church set about recruiting a private investigator to discredit the complainants. In fact this investigator uncovered more evidence of PB’s misdeeds and set about trying to minimise the damage by trying to persuade the police to caution rather than charge Ball.

  • After PB was cautioned how did the church treat him ?
  • PB was not put on the Archbishop’s list
  • PB complained he was forced to resign
  • By Jan 1995 Carey allowed him limited permission to officiate
  • PB was allowed to have more and more church engagements
  • In Jan 1996 Carey allowed PB to do confirmations and preaching at schools
  • PB tried to convince Charles Windsor and others of his innocence
  • PB asked for and was given money
  • A 2000 review of the case suggested PB had been treated very leniently but despite recommendations to cut ties with PB, Carey and Rowan Williams simply told PB not to do confirmations in schools.
  • In 2008 his case was reviewed and an assessment by a psychologist was recommended. This took place in 2010. It showed PB had a lack of insight into offending, that he was highly manipulative and had a sexual interest on post-pubescent boys.

Eventually Phil Johnson complained about PB and a review of files was recommended. Kate Wood had gathered files together and they were passed to the police in 2012 sparking Sussex police to open Operation Dunhill leading to the convictions of PB and Vickery House.

At this point the opening statement from Core Participants represented by Switalskis was read. Here it is :-




  1. The story of Peter Ball is the story of the Establishment at work in modern times. It is the story of how the Establishment  a) minimised the nature of Peter Ball’s misdeeds b) tried to minimise the consequences for him and the Church c) silenced and harassed those who tried to complain.
  2. The Church of England is the Established Church of England. It is the mother church of an ever greater International Anglican Communion. The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The 26 must senior bishops sit as Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. The Supreme Governor formally appoints high-ranking members of the church, including bishops, on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is in turn advised by church leaders. It is an institution that is directly plugged-in at the heart of our Constitution. It is innately powerful by design.
  3. Peter Ball was able to call upon the willing assistance of the Establishment.  It included the heir to the Throne, the Archbishop and a senior member of the judiciary, to name only the most prominent. In combination they provided Peter Ball with:
  4. Money and accommodation;
  5. Legal advice
  6. His own private detective to undermine the credibility of complainants;
  7. Emotional support;
  8. References;
  9. Approaches to the police and prosecuting authorities on his behalf;
  10. And, in the case, of AB Carey a lengthy witness statement in 2014 to try and stop further charges being tried [MPS002746_001].
  • The alacrity and extent of their response to one of their own in trouble was impressive. It is a horrible contrast to the way Peter Ball’s victims were treated. You will hear this afternoon from the Reverend Graham Sawyer and the lifetime of harassment he experienced from within the Church for daring to complain about Peter Ball and others. When AB Carey was presented with demands (after PB’s caution)  for an apology and steps to taken to ensure PB was never entrusted with responsibility for young men in the future, his response in his own handwriting was a) ‘I want to speak to a Senior Policeman about Peter’ and ‘We resist such demands’.   [ACE003298_193]. It was Bishop Kemp who paid for and sanctioned the use of Brian Tyler to try to undermine the police investigation. The Archbishop knew about this.
  • These Establishment helpers claim they were duped by Peter Ball. You will have to consider whether that is credible – given what they must have known or could easily have found out about Peter Ball. Prince Charles has many advisers. He only had to ask what a ‘caution’ meant. So does the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lambeth Palace had even the benefit of a Private Detective reporting from Peter Ball’s own mouth exactly what Peter Ball had done [BBC000004_001]. We know that other letters suggesting further abuse by PC were not passed to police in 1992/3. They were suppressed. A Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal knows the significance of a ‘caution’.
  • But even if you accepted their claim  – that they did not know what Peter Ball had done, that they were ‘largely in the dark’ or that they thought Peter Ball was ‘basically innocent’ – what these helpers were prepared to do was to lean against, add their weight against, the criminal process. They assume, even today – it is part of the mitigation they advance – that as members of the Establishment they are entitled, even duty-bound, to weigh-in on behalf of their Establishment friends accused of serious crimes – even when they are not sure (on their case) what’s been alleged.  In doing so, they went far beyond the normal obligations of friendship.
  • An important part of this Investigation will be for you to determine whether, in fact, the influence that was brought to bear upon the prosecuting authorities in 1992/1993 altered the way Peter Ball was treated. We believe it did. Consciously or unconsciously the weight of influence brought to bear meant Peter Ball received the lowest possible sanction in 1992, when, without his Establishment friends, he would have faced the prison sentence he eventually got. At the very least, as  DI Murdock put it, ‘…had the Church provided us with all the information held on Bishop Peter Ball back in 1992/3 then it might have been possible for us to have identified more victims and therefore present more charges and evidence to the CPS and DPP for consideration.”[GSP000012_087-7].
  • How could this have come about?
    1. Teaching, practice and theology
      1. PB committed his particular style of abuse – nakedness, flagellation, mutual masturbation –  as if it were the practice of St Francis. He must have known that was nonsense. But his authority and religious aura gulled his victims. No one challenged this until the first police investigation.
      2. Religion creates its own permissive atmosphere for abuse and biddable victims. The young and vulnerable are particularly susceptible to confidence tricks of this sort.
    2. Hierarchical structure and concentrations of power
      1. Each of the 42 bishops in CofE is largely unaccountable in his or her own diocese. Only in 2016 was there a mechanism put in place under the Church Disciplinary Measures to suspend or remove a bishop in office (s.24(2) CDM 2003). Even then, such penalty has to be confirmed by the Queen by Order in Council.
      2. DI Murdock was told by Lambeth Palace at the time of his investigations that ‘there was nothing the Church could do to remove Peter Ball from office’ [GSP000012_048 para 253].
  • The consequence of that was that Peter Ball was allowed to use his resignation as a bargaining chip to secure a lighter penalty. It was only something he could offer.
  1. Culture & traditions
    1. The story of Peter Ball reveals a culture of deference towards senior clergy:
      • A reluctance to believe that a ‘saintly’ figure could have committed these types of offences.
      • A reluctance to trust to the secular authorities to handle the matter.
      • A willingness to forgive and reintegrate PB, no matter, what PB had done.
    2. It also reveals confusion about the Church’s attitude towards homosexuality in its ranks:
      • DI Murdock makes clear that one of the factors that influenced his view of the public interest in bringing a prosecution was the risk that some Church witnesses would be exposed as homosexuals in court that ‘would have seen their roles within the Church effectively finished’.   [GSP000012_048 para 265] and ‘I believe that the issue of homosexuality had a detrimental effect in encouraging witnesses and potential complainants within the Church to come forward.’ [GSP00012_048 para 348].
  • All these are matters that support the measures we have advocated at the Benedictine hearings namely:
    1. The creation of a ‘failure to report’ offence;
    2. The creation of a ‘failure to protect’ offence;
    3. The extension of ‘position of trust’ offences;
    4. The creation of a statutory body with powers to police and enforce basic standards of child protection.



22nd JULY 2018


Opening remarks of Core Participants represented by Slater and Gordon followed which were :-

  • Bishops became accomplices in the attempted cover up of PB’s crimes
  • Carey was the most culpable as he deliberately concealed the 4 letters
  • Others such as Police, CPS and members of the establishment have some explaining to do
  • There is then a complaint about Charles Windsor having submitted a letter rather than a statement. It is questioned whether Charles Windsor has been less than frank about his contacts with PB after 1993.

At this point Fiona Scolding QC (counsel to the Inquiry) explained there had been lengthy discussions with Charles Windsor’s lawyers about the format of his submission. His lawyers, Harbottle and Lewis tried to object to providing a statement due to personal privacy reasons, data protection, confidentiality and human rights but she insisted he would be treated the same as anyone else. A section 21 request was withdrawn when a statement with a statement of truth was provided.

Neil Giffin QC for the Archbishop’s council said the church is sorry and ashamed. Safeguarding has changed. The NSSG has accepted all 11 recommendations and has begun to implement them but can’t be complacent.

Mr Bourne, Lord Carey’s lawyer, acknowledged that he had made serious mistakes and was too easily persuaded that PB was a man of integrity. He accepts the letters should have been shared with the police but notes there was only one further allegation in them (this is a disputed fact). He makes the point that there is a difference between a concealment or cover up and an error of judgement.

Mr Brown for the CPS explained the legalities of what was possible in terms of charges at the time. He confirms that in the present day PB would have been charged without question. He goes on to laud the CPS for using the offence of misconduct in public office.

Mr Boyle for Gloucester police explained Gloucester the police investigation was thorough. 60 witness statements were take. A 600 page report was prepared.

A117 gave evidence as a complainant. He was a good looking tanned young man with dark hair and designer stubble wearing a open necked white shirt and a dark blazer. He spoke in a soft but clear voice.

A117 was a schemer in the late 1980s. He explained how he was duped by PB into taking cold showers and being watched by Ball under the pretext of the Franciscan way being to lose one’s ego and pride. This became naked touching and eventually flagellation on the buttocks with a long wooden clothes brush as punishments for having masturbated.

A10 was a smart man in his late 40s wearing a suit.

A10 explained PB wanted to have discussions about sex and tried to persuade him to have sex. He felt PB was very manipulative. A10 was one of those who had written to Carey. PB had talked to him about having dinner with the Queen, Charles and the Queen Mum. He described PB as part Rasputin and part Tartouffe.

Graham Sawyer gave evidence standing, wearing a white shirt and tie. He was a smart man in his 50s with a clear received pronunciation accent.

He explained PB had the reputation of being a living saint. Graham met with PB a few times as after school he wasted to become ordained. He didn’t want to join his scheme in the early 1980s but was initially sponsored by PB for ordination. During their meetings PB insisted that Graham take his clothes off and on 3 or 4 occasions PB did this. On the last occasion Graham resisted and felt he had to withdraw from the ordination path as PB told him he would no longer sponsor him.

Graham went to Durham University and did jobs but in 1984 felt the calling again and applied for ordination and found that there was a black mark against his name. He was told this by a chaplain at Durham he knew had enquired for him. Graham had to qualify as a deacon in New Zealand. He met Rowan Williams in Sydney in 2000 who asked him to come to be a priest in Monmouthshire where he was then the Bishop.

There he suffered a series of harassments from senior clergy relating to his complaints about Peter Ball. He described the way in which Bishops close ranks as the “purple circle”. He said one retired Bishop in Newcastle Australia described it as an ecclesiastical protection racket. His main complaints are against Bishop Dominic Walker and Archdeacon Ken Sharp. The pressure was so much he returned to Australia. Graham was one of those included in the misfeasance charge against PB.



Graham Sawyer’s recommendations are :-

  • Take away the church’s ability to receive the first complaints as it tends to try to quash them at source.
  • Ensure Mandatory Reporting is imposed from outside
  • Ensure probity and transparency
  • The church can’t police itself
  • Need a system completely independent of the church to receive reports
  • Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser system cannot work as they are all different and all beholden to the Bishop.
  • All these new protocols are good but people let them down
  • We need a completely independent organisation
  • The Australian brought in independence almost immediately after the Commission reported – why can’t the UK Anglican church ?
  • The church is an easy place for paedophiles to operate.

24th July 2018

George Carey (Former Archbishop of Canterbury) – speaks clearly, wearing a Bishop’s purple shirt and dog collar. Short grey hair and dark-rimmed spectacles.

He was frustrated he couldn’t get rid of PB at the time according to ecclesiastical procedures as PB was a Bishop.

George Carey (GC) believes in the holiness and integrity of life and that clergy must maintain the highest moral standards. “I told my ordination students : you must not go back on your ordination vows”

He went on to say he’s dealt with an ordinand who was cautioned in 1985 and the police had told him the procedure then.

He believes the vast majority of clergy men and women are honourable.

Child protection was not at the forefront on its issues in 1992/3. We didn’t understand people can have an evil and negative effect.

I couldn’t believe a Bishop could do this. I actually believed him for quite a time.

We thought that because it wasn’t penetrative sex it was the lowest of the low and the police gave him a caution which was the lowest penalty.

GC maintained not a lot was known about child protection in 1992.

The first time I met PB was when I confronted him in December 1992.

There was discussion on how it was that PB was selected for the post in Gloucester. Sir Robin Catford had pushed him forward to John Major against the vote in the Canonical appointments Commission. Ball had been number 2.

It emerged that Mr and Mrs Moss had been to see John Yates to tell him about PB and Neil Todd but GC said he hadn’t told him. GC agreed it was a big thing – “he should have told me”.

Then Ball was arrested on 12th Dec. GC saw them merely as allegations at that stage. He has a pastoral meeting on 15th Dec with PB and his twin brother, Michael in Lambeth. PB was indignant and protested his innocence. After the meeting GC wrote PB a letter which GC describes as “sickly” saying “The matter does not diminish my admiration for you and my determination to keep you on the episcopal bench”. (This appears to be blind support ?).

The four letters.

When questioned about the four letters he didn’t pass to the police he said “It wasn’t in our mindset to pass them to the police”.

There was discussion about a particularly strong letter mentioning cover up. It transpired that GC was replying to the 4 letters when John Yates was meeting with DI Murdoch in the next room at Lambeth (unbeknown to GC).

There was a letter from a mother upset at homosexual advances to her son. Another boy had been asked to masturbate in a school counselling session in front of PB.

Asked “why didn’t you give the letters to the police?” GC replied “The police never asked for them”. Fiona Scolding replied that the police didn’t know they existed so couldn’t ask for them. GC said “We had no awareness that we should pass them to the police”

GC admitted that the internal investigation was “not up to much” and “fizzled out”.

GC said “This is very embarrassing we were fobbing people off. We delayed”

GC then explained that his personal letter to all Gloucester parishes to “pray that PB’s name will be cleared” was a very rare thing to send round but said “I couldn’t assume Peter was guilty”. For me there was still an open mind on his innocence. GC apologised that he had shown little concern for the victims.

Archbishop’s list

Asked why he didn’t put PB on the list GC replied “I decided he was sick and has resigned. What damage can he do ?”

“There is such a thing as grace, renewal and restitution”

I later recognised how manipulative he was.

In a meeting of 29th Jan 1993 the letters were passed to PB’s legal team but not to the police.

Tyler report

GC admitted Eric Kemp (Bishop of Chichester) paid for it. Lambeth knew of the report. Tyler briefed Yates. GC :”I saw it as someone else (Kemp) handling it”.

GC’s letter to Chief Constable of Gloucester

This letter states (among other things) “The testimony of the many young men he has helped over the years – and the list must run into the hundreds – is such that if guilty of unprofessional behaviour it is quite unrepresentative of his lifestyle”.

(This suggests Carey has no appreciation of his own office – ie an Archbishop should not be writing this type of special pleading to a police officer as he is bound to be putting pressure on him. The letter states on its face it is not trying to put pressure on him but in fact it was by its existence calculated to exert pressure).

GC says “I felt it was the honourable thing to do”.


I gave him £12,500 from our funds. Some for legal fees some for a holiday.

PB’s return to ministry

GC didn’t put him on the Archbishop’s list as he wanted him back into ministry as he has such gifts. John Yates and Colin Fletcher had urged him to put his foot down. Fletcher described PB ar status driven, money driven and manipulative.

GC allowed a gradual return to ministry eventually declaring to all Bishops that he should be treated like any other retired Bishop.

GC even stated in a 1998 letter that PB was “basically innocent”. GC felt that PB had lost such a lot he needed to help him.

GC admitted he gave a statement for PB’s defence urging the judge not to put him on trial as he’d already been punished.

Ivor Frank (panel member) reminded him that despite GC stating he believed in his innocence he has stated in a memo that he had appreciated what he had done and was “horrified” This casts some doubt of GC’s truthfulness when he said in his evidence he wanted to keep an open mind (and indeed urged others to pray for his acquittal).

Andrew Purkiss , a press adviser at Lambeth gave evidence of his involvement.

Former Det Supt Wayne Murdoch (WM) of Gloucester police, a man in his 60s with grey hair, a grey moustache, dark jacket and tie gave evidence.

When he was assigned the case in December 1992 he wanted to get to Neil Todd quickly as he thought there would be “some reaction” and he felt well placed to resist outside influence.

Neil Todd (NT) just wanted PB to admit what he’d done was wrong, removed from office and that no-one else would go through what he had endured.

Mr Murcoch interviewed Mr and Mrs Moss and the Gloucester chaplain, Rev Eldridge. Then he had reasonable grounds to arrest PB.

Mr Murdoch related his association (through being taught by) Brother Ken Penfold. He had taught WM at the technical college. Ken was a brother of the glorious ascension. WM said he used this knowledge to get PB talking during interview (to avoid a no comment interview).

He recalls there were 3 tapes used in the interviews under caution. Tape 1 was a denial. Tape 2 was PB agreeing to a lot of nudity and tape 3 contained admissions that he had beaten NT and agreed he had sent him a letter and talked about genital and non genital love. He mentioned ejaculation as being caused by some medical condition.

Did the letters from worthies had any influence on him ?

Letters from the head of Lancing college and Lord Lloyd were read out.

WM only commented “If those people knew what I knew they wouldn’t have written them letters”.

WM recalls a phone call in which he said “I know the DPP. I would like to influence her but I won’t”.

Dealings with John Yates at Lambeth palace

He had a meeting in December at Lambeth palace. With John Yates. “I asked for everything they had”

“Yates didn’t tell me they had files on people. I would have expected them to volunteer anything they held on a Bishop to the detriment.”

To the suggestion the church say he should have asked he replied “That’s a strange way of looking at things especially an Archbishop of Canterbury”.

A memo written by Yates of the meeting records part of the advice or options for the case given by WM was “CPS may not prosecute – non in public interest but Peter’s resignation may be a bargaining counter” WM agreed this is only one possible outcome and he may have said that (here WM seems to have predicted the future ?).

What if WM had been given the letters ?

WM says it may have made a difference to the outcome “but we should have been the judge of that not the Archbishop”.

There was an exchange around WM’s feeling that the church’s hostility to homosexuality internally may have put some people off giving evidence (gay clergy feeling it would damage their careers if they came forward. There are echoes of Graham Sawyer’s situation here).

Michael Ball

WM found out Michael Ball had been interfering with witnesses and was behind a lot of the letters. WM cautioned PB’s solicitor to tell him Michael was very close to being arrested for perverting the course of justice.

Tyler was also getting to people before the police could speak to them. He likewise was close to perverting the course of justice.

Bishop Eric Kemp

It appears Bishop Eric Kemp participated in an attempt to derail the investigation. He had a meeting with WM which was being covertly tape recorded and in which he had arranged to pull back the curtains for Tyler to burst in and confront WM if he had said anything which could affect the evidence.

Sup’t John Horan was the son of the Bishop of Tewkesbury but had no contact with WM other than to tell him his dealings with PB.

Tyler report

WM commented :-

  • I didn’t know Tyler
  • I didn’t say I’d give him statements
  • Tyler is making himself out to have done a wonderful job
  • I am angry with what Tyler has said and done
  • Tyler tried to dissuade witnesses from giving evidence
  • Tyler embellished that took place for his own financial gain

WM re-states that all he agreed to do at the meeting at the Crest Hotel in January 1993 with PB’s legal team and Tyler was to pass on the offer to accept a caution to the DPP.

WM’s 600 page report

He set out only options for charge, not caution. Misconduct in a public office was not on the radar back then. WM wanted charges not a caution.

He personally delivered the 600 page report t the DPP office and there was a later meeting not attended by the DPP (she was in New Zealand).

There is no note of this meeting and the recommendation for a caution emerged. WM says it fitted with NT’s wishes so he ran with that. He rand NT and he was content.

Ivor Frank (panel member) expressed concern that he had mentioned in his report that a consideration in the decision making process on public interest was whether many schemers would have felt duped if Ball was charged – that they would feel their study was groundless. The writer was left with the feeling that WM had a soft spot for the church, didn’t want to do it any damage and that held him back from being more robust in pushing for charges.

Det Sup’t Carwyn Hughes (CU)– a man in his 50s – a smartly dressed precise man.

Head of Sussex police Op Dunhill

Op Dunhill started on 25.07.12. He brought Kate Wood in to help his team. 7 more schemers came forward and 4 more after conviction of PB. NT died in August 2012 and that set the tone for the inquiry. Gemma Wadsworth was an ISVA who helped complainants.

CU was not influenced by the fact a staff officer for Charles Windsor asked whether there were any embarrassing things in letters between PB and CW.

He found the Gloucester file to be in good order. He was unconvinced by Tyler. There was some criticism that the caution had not been properly offered or administered as little evidence of admissions.

He had to grapple with whether there had been some immunity given to PB. This caused delay and some loss of confidence from complainants.

Eventually misconduct in public office and a basis of plea was agreed. Phil Johnson was very unhappy that his offence had not been charged. The other potential charge was unhappy but accepting. 3 more complainants came forward but not in public interest as pre-dated 1992. One was an offence of indecent assault in 1995 when PB took a 15 year old to play squash. He didn’t want to pursue it so no action.

He had also recommended no action against Carey in his dealings with PB.

A statement of Ian Beer (head of Lancing College) was read. He had supported PB in a long letter but realised on his conviction that he had been wrong to do so.


Gregor McGill (DPP’s office) – a smart man in his 50s. Wearing a suit, shaved head and dark rimmed spectacles

The case was dealt with centrally to demonstrate independence from local influences.

It was common to receive letters from MPs. There is nothing to suggest the letters had any influence on decision makers. 1,284 letters and media interest were irrelevant to the decision making.

A document (note of a telephone conversation with DI Wayne Murdoch) CPS000792_0348 showed that Ball could get a possible caution if he resigns.

In Mr McGill’s opinion the fact someone has to resign makes the case more serious as it demonstrates the seriousness. This means it was out of the caution category of offenses.

A CPS briefing note CPS000792_0351 was referred to which showed the caution was given because :-

1)Trial likely to be strongly contested

2) Prosecution witnesses were fragile

3) Offending at low end of the scale

4) Main objective for Neil Todd was Ball’s resignation

5) Acceptance of caution would be the end of Ball’s career. He’s indicated he’ll resign if gets a caution.

Fiona Scolding QC then took Mr McGill through the Home office guidance on cautions in place at the time and demonstrated with Mr McGill that none of the prerequisites were established. Mr McGill said “I don’t think the caution was administered in accordance with Home Office guidelines”. There was a lack of an unequivocal admission and no specifics of the acts Ball was cautioned for.

2012-15 Operation Dunhill

He agreed the delay in a decision on charge was unacceptable. The CPS file had been submitted in 2013 and a decision on charge was only made in late 2014.

He extolled the virtues of Alison Levitt QC who had considered all aspects carefully and suggested the misconduct in public office offence which caught most of his offending.

PB argued :-

  • He was too ill to stand trial
  • The post of a Bishop was not a public office
  • He had been given immunity from further prosecution

These abuse of process arguments took 12 months to be finalised.

A process than took place whereby Ball’s barrister spoke to the CPS barrister to try to work out a basis of plea.

It was recorded that once this agreement was reached (that he would plead guilty if the indecent assaults against Phil Johnson and Graham Sawyer were to lie on file Phil Johnson complained that he had not been consulted beforehand and had been handed a fait accompli. (CPS002280).

Mr McGill agreed position of trust offences could be expanded from the present position to encompass more abusers such as clergy but this would have to be done by parliament.

Malcolm Evans (Panel member) asked whether Bishops of other denominations could be public officers. Mr McGill replied he thought they could if they carried out public duties such as baptisms and weddings. It’s all about the role someone carries out.

Andrew Nunn (Lambeth palace staff) Man in his 50s with a suit and tie. Bald with dark rimmed spectacled.

He had spent 25 years working at Lambeth palace. He knew a lot about the PB affair and had always thought George Carey had ignored advice to cut ties with Ball. He spoke of Ball’s manipulative behaviour in taking Carey’s promises to restore him in vain.


Mr Nunn stated that Carey still said he believed Ball was innocent even after his caution. There were a series of enlightening notes at INQ000616 where Nunn criticises Carey and Carey takes a swipe back at his critics.


Anthony Lloyd (AL) (Formerly Law Lord – Lord Lloyd of Berwick) – A man in his 80s. Thick white hair. Round rimmed specs. Alert and with a cut glass accent.

Had been a barrister, High Court judge, Court of Appeal judge and Law Lord 1992-1998

Peter Ball (PB) was his nearest neighbour at Berwick, East Sussex. He though Ball had remarkable preaching skills. “We became good friends and still are”.

“I became aware of press reports of sexual activity with Neil Todd a 17 year old. Because of his age I didn’t think it was a serious offence although it was a great shock to me”.

AL recalled the telephone conversation he had with DI Wayne Murdoch and admitted he probably did say he knew the DPP and wanted to influence her but wouldn’t. He said he just wanted to find out what was going on.

He denied other people could have perceived he was trying to interfere with the investigation (AL appeared to have little insight into what others thought of him and his position although admitted he referred to himself as a Law Lord to his correspondents when in oral evidence he said he just wanted to find out what was happening). Was there a lack of insight or did AL know what he was doing throughout ?

He then wrote to the chief constable of Gloucester, Mr Pacey on Court of Appeal headed paper OHY000096_070. AL denied trying to influence the investigation.

“I wrote a similar letter to the DPP letting her know how highly I regarded him” (PB).

He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury. There was a reference to the two of them having met at an all male “establishment” dining club called “Nobody’s Friends” This was half Bishops and half establishment figures (according to the Daily Mail quoted by Fiona Scolding QC). The letter was at ACE000877_001.

AL recalls in the summer of 1994 he was in favour of finding PB something to do and had a friend who was the patron of a Parish (he got to decide who would be the vicar) and wanted to get PB appointed. This plan didn’t materialise principally due to advice from George Carey (his memo is at ACE000877_001)

Throught out his evidence displayed a staggering lack of insight – he appears to be entirely ignoring any concerns for the safety of children or understanding of the seriousness of PB’s offending. He also has no perception of the weight his position as a court of appeal judge and law lord carried.

AL went on in 2009 to complain bitterly on PB’s behalf that he was being required to undergo a psychological assessment. AL described this as cruel and that PB should have had more of an explanation. At WWS000071_023 Lord Lloyd is recorded as having made a threat that some powerful people will be very upset. AL doesn’t recall having said that.

Interestingly a letter he writes at ACE001491 is written on notepaper of the House of Lords judicial appeal committee. At that stage he was not on the committee (having left in 1998). Was he authorised to use that paper ? Should the police investigate whether he has tried to deceive by this (possibly unauthorised) use of official paper ?

When the psychological assessment was carried out he described it as “meaningless”. In his oral evidence to IICSA he agreed he would withdraw that remark with apologies.

He wrote a letter to Kier Starmer CPS001584_001 “to try to get him to make a decision”.

Letter from Charles Windsor (read by Fiona Scolding QC)

Essentially Charles Windsor (CW) became good friends with PB. CW didn’t find out what the “indiscretion” was that had caused him to resign from being the Bishop of Gloucester and maintained a fairly close relationship with PB throughout the 1990s and 2000s until 2015 when PB was convicted.

CW gave him gifts of money and caused the Duchy of Cornwall (his own private trust) to buy a house for him and rent it to him and his brother.

A series of letters between the two of them were read out in which PB essentially characterises himself as a victim of his accusers and people in high places. Charles agrees with him and supports him.

Kate Wood former police inspector and currently safeguarding consultant – in her 40s, blonde hair, dark rimmed specs, clear speech and pink jacket.

Kate Wood (KW) worked on and off at Lambeth Palace between 2008 and 2016. It was a bit like going back in time – physically imposing.

She makes the point that the church has in the past had a woefully low headcount on safeguarding posts.

The Mellows review pointed out a remarkable difference between the treatment of Ball and the treatment of other clergy in similar positions.

The Ball file past cases review entry was referred to ACE003069.

KW eventually got some Chichester files from Shirley Hosgood and was shocked and angry that she hadn’t had them before or that there hadn’t been brought to light before – a correspondence file contained the Tyler report. She makes the point that the Tyler report has to be taken with a pinch of salt but its existence was shocking to her. ACE005779.

From that point she passed the papers to the police and wirked with them on Op Dunhill

She recalls having spoken to Neil Todd ACE001870 and had no concerns about his demeanour.

Ivor Frank (panel member) asks a question about document ACE006861 – this was a suspicion by Andrew Nunn that Carey had either destroyed or taken some documents out of the file at some stage.

Moira Gibb (author of the Gibb report on the conduct of George Carey). In her 50s. Brown hair, Dark rimmed glasses. Beige dress. Clear confident speaker.

She wanted in her report to set out for the public what had gone wrong.

She believed Carey was partial. “There was a degree of personal compassion for Ball not matched by an understanding of the nature and consequences of Ball’s abusive conduct”.

She characterised Carey’s behaviour as positive action rather than omission in not passing the letters to the police.

Switalskis oral submissions were then delivered. They are reproduced here :




  1. Our submissions are in two parts:
  1. On the facts;
  2. On the recommendations that follow from those facts.


  1. There is a big lie at the heart of this case. The big lie is that PB’s most prominent supporters, starting with Archbishop George Carey, believed Peter Ball was ‘basically innocent’. GC is the man who micro-managed from the day of Ball’s arrest on 14/12/92 what can only be described as Peter Ball’s defence team.
  2. GC’s attitude:
  1. There was no conception at any time that the Church should provide voluntary assistance to the police in their inquiries. No conception that they should pass on information that pointed towards PB’s guilt, as well as information that pointed away from PB’s guilt. George Carey’s attitude then – and now – was ‘if the police don’t ask for these letters more fool them. It’s their job to prove it and if they can’t, good’. We must assume that he personally prayed that the police investigation would clear PB’s name. And that he did so, even when he possessed powerful evidence suggesting that PB’s crimes were not isolated to just Neil Todd.
  2. The letters were not provided to the police. But they were provided to Peter Ball’s defence team. The only inference you can draw from that is that the Church wanted to help Peter Ball but not the police.
  3. If you needed further evidence that the Church was completely one-sided, you have the evidence of Mr Murdock and the farcical attempt to compromise him by covert tape recordings when he visited Bishop Kemp.
  1. Carey did not believe Peter Ball was basically innocent. No reasonable person could have believed that after receiving the letters from the other complainants.The evidence against Peter Ball only got stronger after that.
  • Meeting with Ball brothers 15/12/92. If you read Carey’s statement (para 45 WWS000143_010) you would think that no admissions had been made: ‘both he and his brother protested his innocence’. If you read Carey’s statement to the police in 2014 [MPS002746_002], there were significant admissions from Peter Ball. “He accepted he had had a close relationship with Neil Todd but he denied he had touched him sexually in any non-consual way”. Which of course suggests he had touched him in a sexual way. GC knew then breach of trust of sexual nature with vulnerable adolescent.
  1. The letters he received from other complainants, vague as they were, were obviously, powerful support for Neil Todd’s central allegation. Either there was a conspiracy against Peter Ball – who was widely regarded as a saint – or they were telling the truth.
  2. ABC knew this. That is the true reason why:
    1. they were not passed to the police;
    2. Lambeth Palace made no attempt to contact these witnesses directly.
  1. These letters were, however, passed to Peter Ball’s defence team, in case they could assist him in proving his only realistic defence of a conspiracy against him.
  2. There are two significant documents missing from the Lambeth Palace file on Peter Ball.
  • The first is any record of the meeting Carey had with the Ball brothers on 15/12/92. It seems inconceivable that this meeting, attended by Frank Robson, was not minuted in any way. Or, if it was not minuted, that was deliberate. The reason no record is available is because it probably contained significant admissions by Peter Ball.
  1. The second is the absence of Tyler’s report. That report was expressly stated to be written solely for the attention of Bishop Kemp and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It set out the truth about Peter Ball.

“I am quite convinced he has been living a dual life, not only as a pseudo-religious, but also in his interpretations of sexual morality. Unfortunately, I came to the conclusion he had been involved in abusing not only his Office but very many young men who passed through his care.”

That was a conclusion he had reached having contacted many of the complainants and having had significant admissions direct from Peter Ball including “I did have an emission.” It stated exactly the nature of what Peter Ball had done.

    1. Bishop Kemp certainly knew it. If ABC had wanted to know the truth, he could have had the truth from Bishop Kemp. ABC knew there was a private investigator on the case (para 77 WWS000143_015). At the very least ABC needed to know why one of his Bishops was accepting a caution for gross indecency.  In all probability, he was told by one form of communication or another. But the record, like that of the meeting on 15/12/92 has been carefully expunged from the file.
  1. The reality is that ABC did not care what Ball had done. He only hoped and prayed that ‘the investigation will clear his name and that he will be restored to his great work of Christian ministry’, as he enjoined the Diocese of Gloucester to do in the New Year 1993 [ACE000255].
  2. The reality is that when they weighed what they knew PB had done against PB’s status as a Bishop, his undoubted talents, and the Church’s reputation, it didn’t count for very much. It is a charge we level at George Carey, Lord Lloyd and Prince of Wales.
  3. It was, of course, a mistake that the terms of the caution were not properly recorded. For all DI Murdock’’s hard work, the police seemed to have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It was a mistake that was ruthlessly exploited by Peter Ball to protest his ‘basic innocence’. It was a mistake ruthlessly exploited by George Carey to promote Peter Ball’s return to the ministry. Carey repeatedly misrepresented the gravity of what Peter Ball had done whenever he could. I know Mr O’Donnell will list the examples we have heard. So I will not repeat them.
  4. We do not know if ‘after the police caution…and my resignation [George Carey] made a ‘solemn promise’” to Peter Ball that the Church would not take any further action against me, ‘because I had been punished enough’ [ACE003088], 22/9/09. But certainly, Carey’s actions in office were consistent with a such a promise.
    1. The internal inquiry against Peter Ball was quietly dropped.
    1. Ball was not placed on the Lambeth list as he clearly should have been.
    2. GC took steps, only a few years after the caution, to gradually introduce Peter Ball to public ministry.
    3. He misrepresented the gravity of what Peter Ball had done whenever he could.
    4. Recommendation to House of Bishops in 1997 that Peter Ball be offered ministry, [ACE003298_122]
    5. He provided a statement to the police in 2014 to try to stop the trial of further charges against him.
  1. ABC wanted to return to the status ante quo  – as if what Peter Ball had done had never happened. He did all this against, on occasion, strong advice from inside and outside of the Church. He did all this knowing that Peter Ball was almost certainly guilty of serious wrongdoing against many young men. He, in the words of Andrew Nunn, did try to ‘sweep it under the carpet’. If ABC thought by doing so, he would protect the reputation of the Church, it was a gross misjudgment.
  2. The tactics deployed by the Church were at the very edge of lawfulness.  We heard how:
    1. Bishop Kemp attempted to compromise DI Murdock in a covertly recorded meeting.
    2. several Bishops telephoned Ros Hunt to ask her to tell the young men who had written complaints to the Archbishop not to speak to the police or the press.
    3. Michael Ball, Bishop of Truro, had been contacting witnesses and trying to influence them.
  1. We would encourage police to review whether any of these matters, in particular the actions of the Bishops who contacted Ros Hunt, disclose offences of perverting the course of justice.
  2. It is hard to know what practical effect Establishment support for Peter Ball had on the decision for a caution. Of its nature, its effects are pernicious, subtle, hard to trace and unaccountable.
  3. Certainly, it was calculated to have practical effect. Lady Renton accepted that the reason her husband wrote to the DPP on House of Commons papers was in the knowledge that it would be taken more seriously. In other words, it was not the merits of what the letter contained but the status of its author that was intended to influence the recipient. Similarly, a Court of Appeal Judge could have no proper reason calling the investigative officer apart from simply making it known that Peter Ball had powerful friends. Again, that was calculated to influence by sheer reason of the status of the caller. The aim was simply to get PB treated more lightly than otherwise.
  4. We do accept that the biggest difficulty facing the prosecution was the fragility of the complainants and the potential harm to them from a trial. The decision to caution was at the bottom end of the reasonable range of options for dealing with Peter Ball. We suspect that ultimately that proved the most politically expedient way of dealing with it. What is inexplicable is the complete failure to record the terms of the caution and record a clear admission from Peter Ball.
  5. Where Peter Ball’s establishment supporters certainly did have effect was in fortifiying George Carey in his intended aim of minimising Peter Ball’s wrong-doing and returning him to ministry. That would have been a much more difficult task if Peter Ball had not had powerful support from the senior figures in our society including the Prince of Wales, who was, apparently inviting Peter Ball to give him communion at his own house after the caution in 1993.
  6. This is properly described as an Establishment cover up. It succeeded by delaying the time when Peter Ball faced the full consequences of his wrong-doing. In doing so it greatly increased the suffering of his many victims.Position of Trust offences
  7. Recommendations
  1. Everybody condemns what Peter Ball did. The great irony is that if he committed those offences today, it would be more difficult to prosecute. The charge of gross indecency has gone. The age of consent for homosexuals has been harmonised with the rest of the population. The current position of trust offences are only expressly framed to protect  a limited class of person: school pupils and those in hospital. It is not obvious it would capture Peter Ball running his own Schemers. It is not satisfactory that these offences were – and would now – have to be shoehorned into an offence of misconduct in public office. That depends on the accident of whether the offender occupies a public office. The extension of POT need careful drafting. But it must be framed to capture people in a position like Peter Ball. It might be broadened to include the case where the offender has an established personal relationship with the victim in connection with the provision of religious, sporting, musical or other instruction to the victim.
  2. Mandatory reporting
  1. A new law should require professionals who work with children in ‘Regulated Activities’ to inform the LADO (‘Local Authority Designated Officer’) or, in appropriate circumstances, children’s services, where the professional knows, suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting child abuse or sexual abuse by those in a position of trust. Failure to inform would be a criminal offence. Presently this is only guidance which is all too frequently ignored.
  2. Strong laws should lead cultural change. In the absence of law those staff who do report presently are, by default, whistle-blowers with very little protection. You have heard what happened Graham Sawyer. Without strong laws any institution – no matter how benign its culture – is vulnerable to a powerful person within that organisation acting without integrity.Statutory body
  1. The creation of a new independent statutory body to enforce basic standards of safeguarding, and to receive and deal with complaints of CSA in all institutions which are responsible for the care of children.
  2. 5.This new statutory body would police and enforce minimum national standards of child-safeguarding. This body would have similar powers to the Health & Safety Executive. The Health & Safety Executive operates for the safety of workers. Children are an even more vulnerable group. The absence of a powerful statutory body dedicated to their protection is a serious defect.
  3. The new independent statutory body will:
  1. Establish a register of relevant Institutions that look after children.
  2. It will be an offence to look after children without being on the register.
  3. To be on the register institutions have to introduce a corporate structure.
  4. Registered institutions will be forced to adhere to minimum safeguarding regulations.
  5. The body will have the power to prosecute regulated organisations for breaches of these regulations (similar to prosecutions by the Health & Safety Executive). Fines will be imposed.
  6. All complaints are to be passed to the independent body by a receiving institution with a criminal sanction for failing to do so.
  7. The body will gather information from complainants, regulated institutions and third parties. It will have the power to compel disclosure of material.
  8. It will liaise with and assist civil authorities such as the police and social services. It would ensure the police and other statutory organisations are taking appropriate action within reasonable timescales. It will have the power to compel the police to investigate and refer cases to the CPS.
  9. It will provide coordinated support to victims, particularly those required to give evidence.
  10. The body will investigate the complaint using the balance of probabilities as the standard of proof. There will be no statute of limitations. It will have the power to make an award of compensation, similar to the CICA. It will decide the support to be offered to the complainant. A scheme will be established to provide adequate compensation for victims of child sex abuse which takes into account the effect on quality of life and a series of relevant factors (as opposed to the rigid CICA system).
  11. Complainants will be allowed to take advice from lawyers and a contribution towards legal costs will be awarded.
  12. The cost of the body’s work, support, reparations and legal costs are to be paid from a levy on the institutions with those found culpable paying the costs of dealing with individual cases in which they are involved.
  13. It will provide to Government regular reports on its progress and, inter alia, the extent to which its activity is promoting the UK’s obligations under the UN convention on the Rights of the Child.

Charity Commission

  1. A review of the powers of the Charity Commission to change that status when serious child safeguarding concerns are revealed should be initiated. We were disturbed to learn that ABC was using discretionary funds at his disposal to provide significant financial support to PB.
  2. Conclusion
  1. The story of Peter Ball makes clear that even one individual in a position of power can undermine any amount of safeguarding, policy and cultural change within an institution. There was on such individual – George Carey – but he was handsomely supported by others.
  2. What this reveals is that the bonds of loyalty to the institution and its senior members is too great to allow them to the right thing. We cannot trust they will. What is required is independent oversight and criminal sanctions of the sort we have proposed.DAVID GREENWOOD, SWITALSKISClosing submissions were made on behalf of Slater and Gordon, the Archbishop’s council, George Carey and the CPSAlexis Jay (Chair) explained the panel would produce a report in the first quarter of 2019 dealing with Chichester and Peter Ball.27th July 2018
  3. David Greenwood
  4. Fiona Scolding QC closed by thanking all who have contributed. She explained there have been 53,000 pages of evidence to read, 118 statements and 14 live witnesses.
  5. 27h JULY 2018



The past cases review (PCR) published in 2010 was announced with the following declaration in the church press release “We firmly believe that any concerns about a member of clergy or other office holder’s suitability to work with children have now been thoroughly examined in the light of current best practice by independent reviewers”

Contrast this with just one submission from one Diocese in which 390 personnel files were reviewed and 76 were found to have had no checks at all. 114 PTO files reviewed 12 had no checks at all. Of the 390 files reviewed and 24 needed further investigation. 1 person was ordained despite having a conviction for indecent assault; 1 person’s file had been taken by the Metropolitan police Paedophile squad. In another, “nasty” pornography discovered but no action taken. This information does not square with the quote above in bold. To our knowledge none of these cases were followed up, investigated further or reported to the police.

The true story is of vast cover up and avoidance of responsibility on an industrial scale.

The church set out in its review criteria to minimise any damage which could result from opening up the books. The criteria given to reviewers were that they should include (1) The number of files reviewed (2) The numbers referred to statutory authorities (3) The number dealt with formally internally. There seems to have been no concern that these three criteria ignored more detailed but still important safeguarding concerns such as cases where clergy had been arrested without being internally disciplined, retired clergy who still pose a risk, clergy against whom no action has been taken despite allegations against them, clergy with no CRB checks. Parish employees and volunteers were ignored. Non-diocesan organisations such as Cathedrals and monastic Orders were excluded

The question has to be asked what has happened to all these cases which remained very much live but which were ignored and swept under Rowan William’s bulging carpet ?

In the closing weeks of the PCR while the final results were being tallied – there was an extraordinary process in which Archbishop’s Council and senior figures in both Lambeth Palace and Church House were inviting dioceses to whittle their numbers down to zero. So for example in their original return, Chichester returned over 50 cases – but were asked to reduce this to zero on confused criteria that seemed almost to have been invented in closing stages. Chichester’s final return was in fact 3. 3 out of 13. Another diocese returned nearly 40 but this was reduced to zero. This seems to have been the pattern. We now know that Lincoln diocese has sent many files to the police, perhaps as many as 50 – but only within the last two years. Presumably many if not all these files should have led to arrest and potential prosecution at the time of the PCR.

In short the PCR was a whitewash. It was never going to be anything other. It left vast numbers of clergy un-investigated, unreported to the police, free to continue abusing and effectively protected by the church. This amounts at best to misfeasance in public office and at worst perverting the course of justice and harbouring criminals. Church officials’ behaviour should be investigated by the police.

Roger Singleton in his evidence to the IICSA IN March 2018 was critical of the Past Cases Review, its methodology and how it created a false rosy picture about safeguarding problems in the church. He made the point that files are very poorly kept and the press statement on the Past cases review was “under-evidenced”.

Yet we heard this morning on BBC R4 Today Roger Singleton now defending the past cases review by denying there was any cover up by the church. How can we have any faith in the review chaired by him when he has been so soft on the ludicrous charade that was the PCR? His review of the PCR has now been published. It is another attempt to keep things “in house” and persuade IICSA that “they can handle it”. Mr Singleton and his reviewers don’t get it and have been far too lenient with the church.

Mr Singleton’s report amounts to another attempted cover up. He uses loose words, and fails to call the PCR what it was – organised massage of the figures which hid abuse and allowed perpetrators and the good name of the church to be protected. He misses the point which is that the PCR was largely a statistical exercise unconcerned with rigorous assessment of church responses. There was no assessment of whether the church response in each case was appropriate (ie whether the alleged perpetrator had been treated too leniently or whether a case was reported to the police).

The CofE shoehorned a massive problem into an eggcup and hoped to get away with presenting this as a misrepresentation of reality. It has taken 8 years for this story to come to light as Phil Johnson and other members of MACSAS tried to get both the Church and the media to attend to this at the time. And we are seeing now today a whitewash of a whitewash. The church has vowed to introduce limited independent oversight but their idea of independence (for example their use of Roger Singleton) is not our idea of independence.

We need a bold minister to step in and appoint an truly independent reviewer to do a thorough examination of the cases and make referrals to the police of abusers and those responsible for covering up for them – and the church should pay for it.

David Greenwood and Gilo

22nd June 2018

Catholic Nun’s rapes of 13 year old boy covered up.

Catholic Nun’s rapes of 13 year old boy covered up.

The case of William Edward Hayes is a shocking but fairly typical case of the Catholic Church clergy abusing the trust they assumed when looking after children to sexually abuse them. We have seen this pattern emerge in many settings over the last 20 years.

What is extraordinary about William’s case is that he was sexually abused by a Nun who went on to have his child. She was expelled from the church and returned to Ireland. The child of the rape was taken into another convent and spent a lifetime looking for the biological parents. William fought for acknowledgement and redress and after a long fight through lawyers for compensation he eventually succeeded. This was not however without the Catholic Church putting obstacles in his way.

William has been helped in the last decade by Noel Chardon, a founder member of MACSAS (“Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors”), a support organisation for clergy abuse survivors. Noel is a trauma recovery counsellor based in London.

William describes the abuse as follows :

“In June 1951 when I was 10 years old, my sister and I were admitted to the John Reynolds Home at East Beach, Lytham St Anne’s in Lancashire. This home was run by the Catholic Order of Religious, The Franciscan Missionaries of St Joseph who were in fact nuns. The house itself contained about 30 children both boys and girls and contained three separate houses. The sisters lived in one of the houses, the boys in another and the girls in the other one. What I did notice was that we were then cleaned up and fed adequately whilst in this particular home where I remained until the age of 15.

The nuns could be nice at times but also very strict and we weren’t allowed to get away with anything. I had been at the home for probably a couple of years before I got a job in the laundry room at the back of the house and one of the nuns Sister Conleth (birth name Bessie Lawlor) was in charge of the laundry. I hadn’t been working in the laundry very long when I was taken to the back of the laundry room and sexually abused by her. She would push me to the floor and either lay on top of me or have me lay on top of her and showed me how to perform sexual intercourse with her. She would not undress at his particular time but would just pull her habit up and pull my trousers down and I would have sex with her. Initially I wasn’t sure what to do but she showed me how to put my penis inside her and then on a number of occasions over the next few years we would have regular sexual intercourse, by this I mean probably every day. When I said that I didn’t want to do these things she told me that I would be in trouble if I didn’t and she would tell people that I had been bad and that I would be in serious trouble. 

I honestly believed her and I knew that nobody would believe me over a nun and therefore kept having intercourse with her. The sex was Sister Conleth carried on for probably a couple of years before I was moved to my own bedroom. After that Sister Conleth would come to my room on most nights and come to bed with me. She would take all her clothes off, get into bed and have sex with me. Looking back at it now I realise this was rape when I did try to complain I was told to just get on with it and she would often make jokes and phrases such as “lets have a prop up”. Obviously looking back on this now I know that the prop up for me to put my penis inside of her and have sex with her.

Sister Conleth always threatened me with punishment should I say anything about what was happening therefore I tended to keep quiet. This changed because I noticed that my sister had become very unhappy and I later found out that she had been abused by Canon Moxham. After that we ran away on a couple of occasions but were caught and were taken back to the home. I was running away because of the abuse, at that time I obviously didn’t know about my sister but she came with me as she was also being abused. On return to the home I did mention what was happening with myself and Sister Conleth to the Mother Superior who was called Mary Osmond. I remember telling her twice but nothing was done. I was really frightened and embarrassed about talking to her but she just acted as though everything was okay. It would have been about 1956/57 when I was aged about 16 that I was called to a meeting. There was Sister Conleth, Mother Superior, a priest and I believe Canon Moxham was present. I was told that I was being sent back to Carlisle because I had got Sister Conleth pregnant. I was put on a train with no money and told to keep my mouth closed and told that if I said anything to anyone, nobody would believe me and I was also told in no uncertain terms that if I mentioned about the abuse and the relationship with Sister Conleth I would be in serious trouble.”

What William couldn’t have known is that Sister Conleth had her baby and was returned to Ireland. The baby was brought up in a Convent and now with the help of Noel Chardon and William finally breaking his silence to the Daily Express on 3rd April 2018 the daughter of the relationship as made contact with William. (see web link here) https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/940504/child-abuse-nun-raped-me-and-had-my-baby-schoolboy-victim

William’s counsellor, Mr Chardon, has discovered not only that the church covered up the fact of the abuse in 1957 but has repeatedly ignored William’s attempts to get recognition and redress from them.

In 2001 William made contact with the Catholic Care organisation, Caritas who ignored him. Thinking he would get no help from the church he took no action until 2007 when he asked his local MP to write to Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor. O’Connor did not help but told William to write to the Bishop of Lancaster’s office. In 2008 William again tried Caritas who tell him that Bessie Lawlor passed away in 2002.

In 2010 William persisted and got a meeting with the Caritas and the head of the Franciscan Missionaries of St Joseph (who ran the children’s home where he was abused), Sister Philomena McCluskey. She told him she’d never heard of this report. William not has the feeling he is being passed around and ignored. No-one in the Church has taken ownership of his case, offered to help and support him, or investigated his case.

In November 2010 William contacts Noel Chardon through MACSAS and Noel provided support, advice and counselling.

In 2011 William, by now age 70 suffers a near fatal heart attack. In 2012 Noel asks for a donation of £1,000 to help William who is struggling financially. The request is denied and Noel is accused of “being on the political wing of MACSAS”. Between 2012 and 2015 Noel provided support and counselling to William. Throughout this period William is “befriended” by a Caritas social worker who works to persuade William that his lawyers are actually his enemy. This causes William great confusion and worry.

On 3rd April 2015 (Good Friday) Noel Chardon, after much research, writes to all 30 Catholic Bishops in England pointing out their breaches of Canon Law in failing to provide help and support to William (Cannons 678, Article 1 and 683 Articles 1 and 2). The 1956 evidence was included in the correspondence to evidence the case.

In 2016 William’s legal case was settled by the Franciscan Missionaries of St Joseph for a minimal payment.

In summary William and Noel accuse the Catholic Church of :-

  1. The abuse itself committed to William between the ages of 13 and 15 on a boy forced to live in the convent.
  2. Failing to support him after leaving the convent.
  3. Failing to try to find his child.
  4. Ignoring his case from 2001.
  5. Failing to alert the police and social services to the case in 2001. Failing to undertake any investigation in to these serious offences (failing to follow its own safeguarding guidance)
  6. Despite knowing his need for support with housing and benefits in old age, failing to help him.
  7. Actively using Jim Cullen, a Caritas social worker, to try to persuade him to drop his legal case.
  8.  Failing to follow its own Cannon law when it failed to help William.

David Greenwood

28th April 2018