Archive for Uncategorized

David Greenwood YouTube posts

Here is a link to David Greenwood’s YouTube videos.

Please take a look.

Survivors Voice Europe’s 10th birthday

Please click the link below for the story so far of this fabulous support group

Case study in a religious institution’s cover up of child abuse and the failures of regulators to take action – Marist Fathers – by Damian Murray – St Mary’s College Blackburn 1970-19





The Marist Fathers

Their culture and concealment of child sexual abuse,
and the ‘watchdogs’ that refuse to watch, bark or bite



by Damian Murray

Marist schoolboy, St Mary’s College Blackburn, 1970-1977



















“The youngster and he were great friends. The old chap taught him a great deal, mind you; and they say he had a great wish for him.”

“God have mercy on his soul,” said my aunt piously.

Old Cotter looked at me for a while. I felt that his little beady black eyes were examining me but I would not satisfy him by looking up from my plate. He returned to his pipe and finally spat rudely into the grate.

“I wouldn’t like children of mine,” he said, “to have too much to say to a man like that.”

James Joyce, The Sisters, 1904












Preface and acknowledgements 4
Introduction 5
Summary and conclusions 6
Part 1: 1970-1977 ‘Sub Mariae Nomine’  
St Mary’s College, Blackburn 8
Father Michael Simison SM 8
Father Kevin O’Neill SM 9
Part 2: 2017-2020 ‘A Man of Many Gifts’  
‘The Boy With the Perpetual Nervousness’ 16
Questions to answer 19
The Marist Fathers and the Diocese of Middlesbrough 21
The Department for Education 29
St Mary’s College Governing Body 33
The Charity Commission 36
The Police 40
Appendix 1     Correspondence with Diocese of Middlesbrough Safeguarding Coordinator 42
Appendix 2     Correspondence with Secretary of Marist Fathers, England 54
Appendix 3     Correspondence with Department for Education 65
Appendix 4     Letter to my MP from Minister for Education 69
Appendix 5     Correspondence with Charity Commission 70






Preface and acknowledgements

1          I present this account as a case study, so that lessons might be learned and actions taken by those with the power to do so. I have tried to include only events and interpretations that I think are strictly relevant to a truthful description of my molestation and grooming by Marist priests in the 1970s, of the historical context, and of my recent investigations into how and why their behaviour went undetected and unreported for so many years.

2          I have to emphasise that I had no desire to recount to anyone else any of the details of my personal life set out here, some of which are frankly embarrassing; but the refusal by the appropriate authorities to act upon or even to acknowledge these serious matters left me no other choice.

3          Neither have I never wished to return to any of my experiences in the ‘care’ of St Mary’s College (SMC), nor spend any of my precious time chasing down information that should already have been publicly available and straightforward to access. I have no warm nostalgia for SMC or most of its former staff and I live my life very much, and quite happily, in the present.

4          I have deliberately excluded any named references to my family, or to the friends of my youth with several of whom I remain close. They have their own lives and stories, and I have received nothing but love and support from them down the years.

5          I have done my utmost to establish the facts of this case, but the partial and guarded nature of the responses I have been given to direct questions and concerns means that there will inevitably be gaps and inaccuracies. The reader will draw their own conclusions and can make their own enquiries of the Marists and their regulators as need be. The long lapses in time mean that my own recollections may not be precise or strictly chronological, but they are nonetheless a materially true and fair account of my experiences as a teenager. All of the conclusions and judgements based on my personal experiences and enquiries as documented here are entirely my own.

6          I gratefully acknowledge my dear friend and fellow ex SMC boy, Jeff Yates, who has been beside me every step of my search these last three years, and without whose strength, insight, patience and humour I might well have given up my struggle to get to the truth.

7          Thank you also to those in the Truth Project of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) who maintain a professional anonymity but who listened carefully and empathetically to me along the way, and to David Greenwood, an authority in the investigation and prosecution of clerical child abuse, who encouraged me to submit my account as a case study to the IICSA.

8          And finally, my undying gratitude to Graham Caveney for his brave, inspirational and important memoir, The Boy With the Perpetual Nervousness. Solidarity.






9          Anyone who really wants to know can easily research online the countless stories that have come to light in recent decades of the worldwide, systemic sexual abuse of children by Roman Catholic (RC) priests and other clergy. The betrayal, heartbreak and horror experienced by each vulnerable, trusting young person is bleakly consistent, the impacts on the rest of their lives often permanently disabling, the sadistic manipulation and exploitation by thousands of adult ‘religious’ reliably cynical, relentless and remorseless.

10        Equally notable is the complete absence historically of any effective regulatory or management framework within the church itself, within the national education systems in which much of the abuse took place or within wider civil society, that might have prevented, detected, corrected, brought to light or guaranteed justice for any of this abuse.

11        In spite of there being several current, wide-ranging international inquiries and criminal investigations into clerical and other child abuse, the RC church remains obstinately reluctant to participate actively or constructively in them. It routinely refuses to provide records or other evidence of the abuse that it already knows about and it continues to maintain a culture of defensive (often aggressive) denial as each new account emerges with tedious, numbing inevitability.

12        The strategy of the RC church, and of the social, legal, and regulatory institutions that shield it from scrutiny, is persistently to deny, deflect and delay, to blame the victims, to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’, to exploit the church’s psychological grip on the faithful, to maintain its veneer of piety and the flow of funds from often equally vulnerable believers at any cost at all to those it abuses and exploits.

13        My own experience of abuse at the hands of Roman Catholic priests is very much at the tentative, less physical or barbaric end of the spectrum but, at 62 years of age, reflection and experience have left me in no doubt that as a schoolboy I was being lured and funnelled into the ‘black hole’ of the RC priest/child abuse experience. I was lucky to pull back from this when others were not. Such ‘threshold’ experiences must almost by definition be more common than the full-blown sexual, physical and mental assaults suffered by so many, and others like me may well now, as adults, also be coming to a realisation of what was really happening to them whilst they were children in the ‘care’ of churches and religious schools.





Summary and conclusions

14        In the 1970s, as a teenage pupil at St Mary’s College Blackburn, I was molested by one Marist priest/teacher and, as I then suspected and now realise, was groomed by another – the then Deputy Headmaster, Marist Father Kevin O’Neill. Although I had often recounted the routine molestation as one more ‘war story’ among former SMC pupils, I told no one of O’Neill’s grooming behaviour until late 2017. This was mainly because of its personal and sensitive nature, but also because I had until then given O’Neill ‘the benefit of the doubt’.

15        I told my story in 2017 because I learned from the victim’s then-published memoir that the priest who had groomed me had gone on just a few years later to groom and then sexually assault him when he too was a young, teenage schoolboy and O’Neill was then his Headmaster.

16        That victim for many years kept his ordeal to himself, but found the courage to disclose the assaults to the Marist Fathers in 1993. The Marists then, for over twenty years, kept the abuse concealed: from the police; from school and charity regulators; from charitable donors and beneficiaries; from current, former and prospective staff, pupils and parents at SMC; from other potential victims of O’Neill’s grooming or abuse; and of course from the wider public. The Marists, because at the time of his disclosure he did not want his parents to know of the abuse, today essentially blame the victim for their own lies and deception over the decades.

17        In 2017 there was little information or evidence available to me about what exactly had happened in relation to O’Neill’s abuse or its concealment, nor of what, if any, action had been taken between 1993 and 2017 by the police, by SMC or by the bodies responsible for regulating the Marists Fathers. I therefore resolved to find out for myself.

18        The account and context of my own molestation and grooming in the 1970s  is set out in Part 1 to this case study, and what I found and concluded from my recent enquiries is documented in Part 2.

19        The firm conclusion that I have drawn from my enquiries is that at no time since O’Neill perpetrated his sexual grooming and abuse of pupils in the 1970s have the Marist Fathers been a fit and proper organisation to hold responsible positions in the governance, ownership, control or provision of education to children and young people in the UK, publicly funded or otherwise.

20        In my view, the Marists should be removed from all such positions and their own charitable status should be rescinded. The Marist trustees and members responsible for the continued, persistent concealment of the sexual abuse of a child by a Marist Headmaster should be subjected to appropriate sanctions by their regulators. Full disclosure of their actions should be reported and made known to SMC stakeholders and to the general public.

21        Although I have done my best to inform and engage the Department For Education (DfE) and the Charity Commission (CC), the Marists’ two key regulatory bodies, both have disregarded most of the information I have given them and dealt with my concerns, in my opinion, inadequately, incorrectly, dismissively, and negligently.

22        The DfE, including the then Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, have simply denied any responsibility for Further Education Charitable Trusts such as the Marists’ at SMC, and have told me that the Government have ‘no rights to interfere’ with them. They have accordingly declined to comment or act upon any of the concerns I have raised with them about the Marists’ long-standing culture and concealment of child sexual abuse at SMC.

23        The Charity Commission’s eventual response and ‘investigation’, coming only after a great deal of persistence on my part, were contemptuous, amateurish, half-hearted, dilatory, weak and unsatisfactory. They have failed or declined to address specifically or directly most of the serious issues I raised with them and in my opinion they have not met several of their own statutory responsibilities in relation to the Marists’ own charitable trust.

24        Reluctantly, and at the insistence of the DfE, I also took my complaint to SMC’s current Governing Body, and I have to say that the then interim Principal, Vice-Chair and staff dealt with me in good faith and as best they could. Unsurprisingly, this revealed yet more gaping holes in the Marists’ woeful standards of governance, although, perhaps more surprisingly, the Vice-Chair and interim Principal did at least uphold my complaint that the Marist Fathers as Trustees of the College had indeed concealed the abuse of one of its pupils by Headteacher O’Neill. Otherwise they had no other locus or power to act – understandably given their obvious conflicts of interest as appointees and/or employees of the Marists themselves. Now, in any case, they have the unenviable task of retrieving the College from the financial and administrative mess that is now the other main legacy of the Marist Fathers’ tenure there.

25        Insofar as I had dealings with the Police in relation to my formal accusation of molestation by a Marist priest/teacher in the 1970s, I was treated by them in a generally professional, sensitive and appropriate way throughout.

26        Rather than endure further bureaucratic delay and disappointment by, say, taking complaints about the DfE and the CC to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, I instead elected to draft this case study as an account of my own findings and personal conclusions, to place it formally on the record with the IICSA ,and to make it available to any other interested party to help them make up their own minds about the Marist Fathers’ culture and concealment of child sexual abuse and the way in which their supposedly independent regulators have responded to it.






Part 1: 1970-1977 ‘Sub Mariae Nomine’


“We hope to share the experience of a relationship, but the only honest beginning,
or even end, may be to share the experience of its absence.”

R D Laing, The Politics of Experience, 1967


St Mary’s College, Blackburn

27        Between 1970 and 1977, from ages eleven to eighteen, I was a pupil at St Mary’s College (SMC), Blackburn in East Lancashire, a Roman Catholic (RC) direct grant ‘grammar school’ for boys owned and run by the Marist Fathers, a small, obscure, though international teaching order of priests.

Father Michael Simison SM

28        Around the 1972-1974 school years, I and many other boys were being molested routinely by Father Michael Simison. This usually involved touching or smacking our backsides, mostly, to my knowledge, through the clothes, and often openly as some kind of comic performance in front of a class. This was considered by us to be by no means out-of-the-ordinary behaviour for a member of SMC teaching staff.

29        Simison arrived at the school when I was in my second or third year and took over as our year’s Latin teacher from Mr Finley. Simison also taught us Religious Studies and English, and I think for one year he was our form teacher. One incident has lodged in my memory ever since the day it happened.

30        I am unsure of the exact year, but I believe it was not long after he arrived at SMC. I would estimate it would be in about 1972, when I was 13. I did not keep a diary, so it is difficult to be exact about the time and date, but I am clear about what happened and where.

31        One lesson, Simison came into the classroom, which was a portacabin away from the main school building, with a pile of marked Latin homework books. He took his normal place at the front of the class and allocated some work to be done quietly during the period, saying he would be taking each pupil individually through their homework, pointing out their errors and what they needed to improve. He then moved with the homework books to a desk at the back of the class, with the result that the pupils in the class, as they were facing forwards, could no longer see him. He then called up each pupil one at a time to discuss their work.

32        When I was called, I stood sideways to the right of him at his desk whilst Simison opened the homework book at the relevant exercise. As he went down the questions, pointing with his left hand, he reached up his right hand so that it sat between my shoulder blades. Progressively he then both increased the pressure of his right hand, bending me downwards towards the desk, and ran his hand further and further down my back. By the end of this exercise I was bent with my face almost to the surface of the desk with his hand resting and lingering on my bottom, albeit outside my trousers. As I had not done very well with the Latin exercise, he then slapped my bottom and sent me back to my desk. To the best of my knowledge, he repeated this with every pupil in the class (I would say between 15 and 20 of us), though those who had done well were not slapped.

33        This incident was discussed by the whole class afterwards as being very odd indeed, even by the primitive and typically low standards of the SMC staffroom.

34        I also believe that this specific incident, as well as others to which I was not party, contributed to the evolution of Simison’s generally used school nickname, “Botto”. This began life as “Otto” when Simison arrived at the school, because his hairstyle then was reminiscent to us young boys of a German WW2 helmet as depicted in the culturally simplistic war comics of the day. I also understand that this was further elaborated by pupils in the late 1970s to “Otto von Botto”. Not very ‘woke’ by today’s standards admittedly, but reflecting a widely experienced reality nonetheless.

35        When this incident happened, as now, I felt that Simison’s behaviour was unwelcome, inappropriate and disturbing, and I find it difficult to attribute any motive to it other than a sexual one. It also seems clear to me that Simison knew what he was doing to be wrong, given the pains he took to conceal his actions from sight, ie at the back of a classroom and set away from the main school buildings.

36        He will also have been reasonably confident that his actions would not be reported at the time, given his dominant status as teacher and priest to very young Roman Catholics, and given the prevailing level of unpredictable, eccentric, authoritarian and often casually violent behaviour among SMC teaching staff generally. In this context, ‘normal adult behaviour’ was for us an extremely pliable and debatable concept.

37        As an adult and parent looking back, I now see that the social and cultural fabric of an RC upbringing, the unquestioned authority of RC clergy, the power structures and accepted norms of clerical orders like the Marist Fathers and schools like SMC, and behaviours like Michael Simison’s, are all characteristic constituents of the fertile ground in which more serious abuse has historically been able to grow and take deep root in RC institutions. This is the ground upon which predatory child abuser Father Kevin O’Neill, friend of Simison and the then Deputy Headmaster, was able in plain sight to groom his victims unchallenged and unchecked for so many years.

Father Kevin O’Neill SM

38        In appearance and mannerisms, O’Neill presented as the caricature, post-Vatican 2, ‘trendy vicar’. With longish hair (a dyed-black comb-over), ‘tache, specs, sideburns, leather jacket, stack-heeled boots, English university confidence, just-acceptably-raffish ways and acquaintance with an even then slightly dated pop culture, he contrived to pass for ‘charismatic’ among Lancastrian RC schoolboys and parents more accustomed to the then standard, less-than-sophisticated, ‘agricultural’ Irish parish priests they had grown up with. Theologically he remained as conservative as the rest of them, at least in his public observances.

39        O’Neill drank a lot, gambled on the horses, put himself about socially in the local parishes and towns and befriended and made acquaintances routinely with many pupils and their families. He did good works among the needy and the down-and-outs of Blackburn. He played Christ, scourging, crucifixion and all, in a full-blown ‘passion play’ held one Easter at Whalley Abbey. Every year he selected and took with him on holiday to Greece a different small group of teenage boys. He got involved with school sports teams, supported Burnley FC at Turf Moor and did not exempt himself from strapping duties when the usual suspects were lined up for punishment outside the SMC staffroom every week. He had a Cambridge degree in English Literature and a fixation with ‘sensitive’, working-class adolescent boys typified by the young D H Lawrence.

40        He was also very much one for the protégé; and even before I got to know him myself I was aware that in my time and before he had gathered other likely boys under his wing for special attention. It was already a sought-after place to be. French teacher and violent old racist, Father Stuart, in class and in one of his more lucid moments, referred to this as “the O’Neill cult”.

41        O’Neill taught English Literature and Religious Studies, both with a great deal of self-confidence and a plausible air of authority, if with no discernible competence whatsoever. Like many of the SMC priest-teachers, I doubt that he had any formal qualification to teach, let alone to be the Headmaster he ultimately became. It was when he was Deputy Headmaster and teacher, in my 1974/75 school year, when I was first drawn, aged 15/16, into his sphere of influence and attention.

42        My recollection of the exact sequence and timing of my encounters with O’Neill has become less precise over the years, but the memories of key conversations and events have never left me, though for over forty years I kept them to myself.

43        I do not intend to disclose here the serious personal problems that brought me to seek counselling and guidance from O’Neill between 1974 and 1977, their specific details are not relevant to an understanding of O’Neill’s grooming technique. At school I did not discuss them, even with my closest friends. Suffice to say that he was never in danger of intrusive parental supervision and he knew it. Significantly, it was my youth, vulnerability, naivete, and need to trust him, together with his authority, charm, status, power and guile, that formed the classic blueprint from which this predatory paedophile built his sexual trap.

44        One meeting I can anchor fairly precisely in time. O’Neill took me one August afternoon in 1975 for a drink in a Blackburn pub in the Lammack/Pleckgate area of Blackburn, not far from SMC on Shear Brow, or indeed from the Marist priests’ residence on Shear Bank Road. This was not therefore, in one sense, a furtive meeting. Nor in those days was being 16 and drinking in a Blackburn pub, unchallenged by the bar staff, a particularly remarkable occurrence. I and many of my friends were being served in working men’s clubs and pubs by that age, the simple continuation of our northern male traditions.

45        I was having a personal crisis and had called him to ask for a meeting to talk about it. It was the summer holidays of O-Level results and before joining the 6th form for the 1975/76 term. He agreed to pick me up from outside SMC in his car. On my way through Blackburn town centre beforehand, I bought a vinyl single from Ames’ record shop – Brian Eno’s camp, non-chart-bothering tilt at the much-covered 1960s Tokens chestnut, ‘The Lion Sleeps Tonight (Wimoweh)’.

46        I drank pints of dark mild in those days and O’Neill was buying. Although I did have a Saturday job, I would not have had much cash. I do remember that at one point he became self-conscious that he was being noticed at the bar as an adult, whom they probably knew, buying drinks for a young boy. He acknowledged this to me and asked me to go to the bar myself a couple of times so that it looked more like a social occasion between equals. The conversation was mostly about my problem, so I was happy with it and did not feel uncomfortable. On the contrary, being shown genuine warmth and individual attention by this charismatic priest and senior schoolmaster was to me a great privilege, and to be kept just between me and him.

47        One comment by him that day that was to feel relevant later on, was his observation that alcohol took away one’s inhibitions, loosened the tongue and made possible behaviours one would not otherwise contemplate. Our talk would also have ranged around literature and philosophy in which I had an adolescent’s raw interest and a random reading based mainly on what could be found in Great Harwood’s wonderful, mid-century-modern public library.

48        In 1975, although I had then rarely set foot outside north Lancashire, by my own teenage reckoning, and very much on paper, I was already enviably knowing, worldly and culturally sophisticated. One of my closest school friends, and the greatest inspiration of my young life, was fairly openly gay – still a pretty daring and even dangerous thing to be in the 1970s. Together we would hang about, uniforms, satchels and all, in ‘Amamus’, rather startlingly for that Lancashire cotton town, an exotic, to us anyway, ‘countercultural’ bookshop up a side street in Blackburn town centre, stocking up on joss-sticks or esoteric works by the likes of Camus, Genet and Aldous Huxley.

49        And then of course, as for many of us, there were the exhilarating horizon-expanding discoveries that came with exposure to the American Beat writers, Burroughs, Bowie, The Velvet Underground, Warhol, and US and UK punk rock. O’Neill had even borrowed my copy of ‘The Velvet Underground and Nico’ album and penned for me an epigrammatic review. ‘Dis-ease’ is the one word I remember from it. That hyphen – so meaningful.

50        O’Neill would flatter my ‘insightfulness’ and offer his own suggestions to broaden my explorations. He would also drop school staffroom gossip into the conversation, sometimes with a sexual element. One of the female English teachers had only three subjects of conversation he told me, “Sex, sex and sex.”. He was sure she wanted to have sex with him or one of the other priests because she had a fascination “with the untouched cock”. This was heady stuff for a teenage ex altar boy, though my then still hyper-sensitized RC conscience was perceptibly rattled and perplexed at such casual profanity from the mouth of a priest. But he was not just a priest, or Deputy Headmaster; we must surely now be friends I believed.

51        After a couple of hours in the pub he drove me back into town and I got the bus home. My problems had not gone away, but I had been listened to and believed. I was not entirely alone. Alas however, I had left my vinyl record on the dashboard of his car that hot August day and its edge was now warped to a pronounced curve. I still have that record; Eno’s opening “Ooooooooh ..” now a modulating and distorted yodel that, if anything, lends the song an avant garde embellishment much to its advantage.

52        How did I come to have the confidence, and indeed the option, to call up Father O’Neill for a chat that afternoon? What led up to it and how did our relationship evolve and, eventually, peter out?

53        The occasions by which O’Neill drew me into his orbit were several, not obviously connected, yet all of a piece with SMC’s culture and climate of adults who were domineering and disciplinarian one minute, pally, informal and anarchic the next. All of them occurred within the context of a wall-to-wall RC upbringing and education, as well as the school’s daily round of Catholic ritual and humbug. Just a few key conversations and events will suffice here to summarise why, until 2017, I harboured and kept to myself the suspicion that O’Neill had been cultivating a relationship with me in the 1970s with the objective of sexual activity, even though that objective was never achieved.

54        It was in the 5th form that I first had any lengthy conversations with O’Neill, sometimes in his office on the Admin corridor, sometimes in the pub in the company of other SMC friends of mine. Friday or Saturday nights we would sometimes venture out of Blackburn town centre up to the Shear Bank pub where we knew O’Neill and his friend Simison were often to be found. At the beginning I very much sought him out. Doubtless I had this in common with many other pupils around my age in the years before, during and since my time at SMC.

55        There were also a few occasions when O’Neill would invite boys back to the Marists’ communal residence. Drink would be offered and taken (gin and tonic) and music would be played (Neil Young’s album ‘Harvest’ a favourite of his). This would normally only happen when the Headmaster, Father Cassidy was away, though others like Fathers Noel Wynn and Michael Simison might also be around and were certainly aware of these get-togethers. On one Friday I slept overnight, very drunk, at the Marist Residence in a small bedroom. I remember that O’Neill put my shirt and jeans in their washing machine because I had been sick in his car. Although I was out like a light, I remain fairly certain that no sexual impropriety took place.

56        It was in the one to one conversations in school, however, that O’Neill began, as I now see it, to ‘reel me in’. He had an annual routine of holding private, personal conversations in his office with each member of the 5th year, or at least the ones in his form group, in order to ‘really get to know them’. It was in this conversation with me that he first learned of my problems and took on the role of counsellor, mentor and friend.

57        On one occasion he lent me a copy of DH Lawrence’s novel, Sons and Lovers, seeming to believe that I might identify with and take encouragement from its depiction of a sensitive, artistic young man struggling to manhood in a grim coal-mining community and torn by his dysfunctional relationships with an overbearing, educated, aspirational mother on the one hand and a violent, drunken, philistine father on the other. Great book, but I had to tell O’Neill that I did not share Lawrence’s disdain for his own class, and that I found the author insensitive to the brutal economic realities that made the father what he became.

58        In spite of any relationship I might have thought we had formed, at the end of my 5th year he pointedly reasserted his schoolmasterly power and authority. Skiving off an end of year celebratory mass, I and several friend found ourselves in detention, most of us for the first time in our careers at SMC. O’Neill also hauled me in for a one to one in his office. This time he was cool, distant and very much the Deputy Head. “Why didn’t you want to go to mass?” “I don’t believe in that stuff anymore”. “Then perhaps you should be at another school. I can arrange a transfer.” I felt sick. He did not go through with it, but he had explicitly and effectively threatened me with the ultimate source of his coercive power.

59        In the Lower 6th form he also had an ingenious technique for identifying those pupils he considered ‘interesting’, vulnerable or conflicted in some way. He asked each member of the group to write, anonymously, a side of A4 telling something about themselves they had never told anyone else. He collected them up and took them away to read. In a subsequent session he would read aloud a few of the ones he said he had found the most compelling. My half-baked attempt at a prose-poem that hinted at my problems, as well as my adolescent difficulties forming relationships of every kind, was inevitably one of these, further bolstering my sense that I was saying something special to him that he especially understood. Of course, given that he saw all of our handwriting all the time in our essays and exercise books, he needed no particular forensic skill to know who had written what.

60        I cannot honestly remember if it was in the 5th form or the lower 6th, but one of our chats in his office led to the one incident that stayed with me the most vividly, and left me with the life-long suspicion that O’Neill had sexual motives in cultivating his relationship with me.

61        He asked me if I wanted to go to the pictures with him. I was inwardly overwhelmed and nervously excited at an invitation from such an authority figure entirely beyond the bounds of my life experience to date. I said yes, what would we go to see? A Woody Allen film (I had never heard of him then), ‘Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask)’. I had never heard of the film either, but this sounded very grown-up and something I was not supposed to see, which was fine by me, even as the word ‘sex’ from the mouth of a priest again jangled my RC conscience.

62        The film was on at the Unit Four Cinema in Brierfield, near Burnley, a few miles on the other side of my home town from Blackburn and a good distance from his normal field of operations. I would get the train from Rishton and he would meet me at the cinema. When I got there on that evening O’Neill was waiting at the entrance. Unexpectedly, the Allen film was no longer on he told me; we would have to see another one. The film he chose was director John Boorman’s, ‘Deliverance’. I had never heard of this film either, but it was ostensibly about the adventures of some American suburbanite men on a canoeing/hunting holiday in the southern USA, starring the then bankable Hollywood hunk, Burt Reynolds. Which of course it was, and a good deal more.

63        If you have not seen ‘Deliverance’ (it is a very good film), you will almost certainly be familiar with the piece of music most associated with it, ‘Duelling Banjos’, and perhaps with the scene where that duet is played between the disturbing-looking ‘hillbilly’ boy and one of the canoeists/hunters. Its other, and then most controversial, claim to fame is the fairly explicit depiction of a prolonged, violent, male homosexual rape. To say the least, this was entirely unexpected and an extremely uncomfortable few minutes for me. I clearly recall looking sideways at O’Neill in the darkness, with the genuine expectation that he might be playing with himself. He was not, but as far as I was concerned the two alternatives were that he had been just as blindsided as I was, or that he knew perfectly well what to expect. The film had first been released in 1972, I now know, so it was entirely possible that he was already familiar with its story.

64        Coming out of the cinema, neither of us made any reference to that scene, though I do remember O’Neill commenting that Reynolds was “cute at the beginning of the film and still cute at the end”. At the time I took him to mean “cute” in the sense of ‘shrewd or clever’, rather than ‘pretty and attractive’, but then my thoughts and emotions were all over the place on the drive home. Nothing further untoward took place and he dropped me off in my home town on his way back to Blackburn.

65        After that, whilst I still preferred to believe we had had our own special friendship, the doubt about his intentions, and the feeling that he was purposely sexualising our interactions, formed quite definitely and sat at the back of my consciousness as we gradually saw less of each other one to one.

66        From then, whenever we parted company, I always firmly shook hands with him, a gesture I deemed ‘manly’ and, for some reason, heterosexual. I had always called him “Father” in deference to his status as priest but also to maintain some formality and distance. I also began, in the 6th form, to refer in our chats to my (albeit unrequited) attraction to girls, intentionally to send him an unambiguous signal that he might be barking up the wrong tree.

67        O’Neill taught me A-level Religious Studies in the 6th form. He also knew that I was struggling both with my personal problems and with the hopelessness of the rookie teacher who could not control the rowdier elements in my English Literature class. Rather than deal with the classroom problem as a competent senior school manager might, he instead gave me an original, typed copy of a paper he had written at Cambridge about John Keats’ debt to Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ in the composition of Keats’ poem ‘Hyperion’. (Slightly annoyingly, the word ‘vale’ still has a disproportionate resonance and meaning for me.) Though it helped not a bit with my English Literature, it seemed to me a token that a special relationship still flickered.

68        Just before our A-Level exams, my gay school-friend was singled out and savagely persecuted for his sexuality by Headmaster Father Patrick Cassidy, with the full knowledge and complicity of his sidekick O’Neill. Whilst that is not my story to tell in detail, at the 6th Form leavers’ lunch I confronted O’Neill angrily about what Cassidy had done. I told him that even by Catholic standards it was a sin and that he was party to it. O’Neill claimed helplessness; though of course I now realise that he was a cowardly hypocrite who was never going to do anything to jeopardise either his lifetime meal-ticket in the Marists or his access to vulnerable and impressionable RC boys.

69        I failed my Religious Studies A level completely, even though my ‘mock’ exam grades had been good and I had applied to study Philosophy and Theology at university. O’Neill was mortified. He telephoned the professor of Theology at the university personally on behalf of me and another pupil and convinced him to admit us to the course, which, rather surprisingly in retrospect, he did. At the time I was grateful to O’Neill for making that effort on my behalf. Now, I would just rather he had prepared us properly for the exam.

70        Though we met very occasionally and chatted even after I left SMC and until about 1981, when I was back working in Blackburn after university, there was never any question of us going out drinking or, say, going to the pictures again. Those memories would surface every now and again in the following decades, but in the absence of any other reports that he had sexually cultivated or molested anyone else, I consciously gave him the benefit of the doubt and even felt guilty that I might have unfairly misread his intentions.

71        When it was announced in the Lancashire Telegraph (LT) in 1993 that O’Neill had retired as Principal of the then SMC 6th Form College on ill-health grounds, I was surprised and sad for him. When he died in 2011 (he had apparently succumbed to ‘dementia’ in 1996), I attended his requiem mass at Pleasington Priory, still giving him the benefit of the doubt. I and another fellow ex-pupil and friend of O’Neill were a little surprised at how relatively few other people were there, given O’Neill’s years at SMC, his local celebrity and  gregarious nature, and I particularly noted the apparent absence of his close friends and colleagues from the 1970s and ever since, fellow Marist Fathers Michael Simison and Noel Wynn.

72        Wynn as a SMC governor, and O’Neill’s long-time friend and colleague, was however quoted at some length in the LT of 4 April 2011 on the occasion of O’Neill’s death. “Kevin was the life and soul of any party and found a great deal of enjoyment in life. He was a keen traveller and accompanied many parties of students abroad to Italy and Greece, a country he continued to visit on his own or with congenial confreres. He was a great communicator with people of all ages and had a wonderful sense of humour. He suffered patiently and with good humour, and was still able to tap his foot to the strains of Dusty Springfield, a long-time favourite of his.” The LT also noted that in 2008 a new £2.5million performing arts centre – O’Neill Academy for the Performing Arts – was named after the former Principal.

73        The word ‘confrere’ is, I believe, Marist-speak for those, evidently male, who are themselves Marists or who go along with their ‘ethos’. In Father Wynn’s eulogy, its meaning appears to be broad enough to encompass the teenage boys who, under Mediterranean skies, were called upon to rub sun-cream onto O’Neill’s middle-aged back. He was correct about Dusty Springfield, mind you. O’Neill told me in one of our chats that he felt the indisputable emotional heft she brought to her performances, as well as her troubled personal life, were partly down to her conflicted lesbianism. He had a point, but to me it was just another instance of the sexual turns he would inevitably take in our conversations.

74        I do not remember much else about the Requiem mass other than the main celebrant priest, among a number of Marists on the altar, extolling O’Neill’s ‘fine baritone voice’ when he had joined in their communal singing of an evening. A few former teaching staff were also scattered among the sparse congregation.

75        O’Neill went again to the back of my mind for several more years. Then, in 2017, all my doubts and fears were abruptly crystallised and the reality of O’Neill’s true nature as a devious sexual predator came home to me with proper vengeance.


Part 2: 2017-2020 ‘A Man of Many Gifts’


Called my congressman, he said quote,
“I’d like to help you son but you’re too young to vote.”

Summertime Blues, T Rex B-side, 1970


‘The Boy With the Perpetual Nervousness’

76        In 2017, former SMC pupil Graham Caveney published his memoir, ‘The Boy with the Perpetual Nervousness’, in which, among other early life experiences, he describes in detail his grooming and sexual abuse at the hands of his then Headmaster, Marist Father Kevin O’Neill in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

77        This is the point, in autumn 2017, when I became fully aware for the first time that my suspicion that I was being groomed by O’Neill in the 1970s, some six years or so prior to his abuse of Caveney, was indeed well-founded.

78        Caveney’s story shocked and sickened me, firstly because my own fears had come true and O’Neill had indeed ultimately sexually assaulted someone, but then with the realisation that had I spoken up about my suspicions, and been believed, when I was at school, Caveney might have been spared his own ordeal and the lifelong trauma and damage it has caused him. I know rationally that I am not to blame for O’Neill’s behaviour, but I am truly sorry that I said nothing at the time.

79        Reading Caveney’s book was at many points a disorientating and disturbing experience for me, because almost all of his interactions with O’Neill, barring the masturbations and the trip to Crete, were almost identical with my own. His story is my story, if only up to the point where O’Neill felt confident enough to press his advantage over the young teenage Caveney, a victim securely bound to him by affection, loyalty and the sense of a unique bond which is the textbook goal and outcome of successful paedophile grooming.

80        I will not rehearse Caveney’s full story here. His book is powerful and moving in its own right and I would urge you to read it for yourself. As a memoir of a particular person, time and place, it is far more than the passages that starkly describe O’Neill’s abuse. It is an achieved work of literature, in many senses poetic in the way its style and structure embody and enact Caveney’s painfully and perceptively felt experiences, emotions, psychological struggles and insights.

81        Caveney was interviewed about the book and his SMC experiences in the Lancashire Telegraph (LT) of 30 August 2017. In the article, amongst other things, he says that though O’Neill was ‘removed from the school’ [in 1993], the Marists ‘never reported it to the police’. He also says that ‘…looking back he should have been reported to the police.’

82        This is also where I learned than the SMC had named a new performing arts building after O’Neill in 2008. A typically anonymous ‘spokesman for the Marist Order’ is quoted as stating that ‘The college was unaware of [O’Neill’s abuse] when the performing arts block was named.’

83        This made no sense at all to me. The Marists, as a very small, tightly knit organisation of priests, had known about O’Neill’s abuse by 1993 at the latest. The Marists own the land and buildings and are the legal Trustees of the SMC FE college charitable trust. They appoint nearly all the governors, and thereby the Principal and other senior managers. They therefore effectively determine the business strategy and the religious ethos of the college. Father Noel Wynn, long-time friend and colleague of O’Neill and his LT obituarist in 2011, teacher at SMC in the 1970s, one-time headmaster of Middlesbrough’s Marist College, some-time Regional Superior of the Marist Fathers in the UK, had himself now been a SMC governor for many years. The Marist spokesman had therefore construed the term ‘college’ here very, very narrowly indeed. The obvious question, not pursued in the article, is if ‘the college’ was not aware, why wasn’t it?

84        A likewise anonymous ‘statement from the school governors’ is also quoted: ‘At the time of the opening of the Performing Arts block, neither the Principal nor governing body was aware of these allegations.’ The obvious question, again unpursued in the article, is ‘Why not?’.

85        O’Neill’s abuse and the Marists’ deliberate cover-up posed, at the very least, an enormous reputational risk to the college, its principals and governors, and they could each reasonably expect to have had this brought to their attention before taking on their own governance responsibilities. Tellingly, some 24 years after O’Neill ‘admitted his wrongdoing and was immediately removed from his post’, the governors are here still using the word ‘allegations’. O’Neill’s grooming and sexual abuse of Caveney is not an ‘allegation’; it is an indisputable fact.

86        In autumn 2017 therefore, no other information apart from the LT article, Caveney’s book and my own experience was available to me, and there also appeared to be a good deal of scepticism prevailing among many other SMC past pupils that Caveney was even telling the truth. I therefore resolved to find out for myself, as independently and objectively as possible, the facts about the Caveney case, and to relate my own experiences at the hands of the Marists to the relevant regulatory authorities so that they could take any appropriate action.

87        O’Neill was dead and beyond reach. Father Simison was still alive and active in the Marist order, although none of them were classroom teachers any longer. I now had to ask myself, what if Simison had also graduated to more serious sexual assaults on pupils after I had failed to make my experiences and misgivings known in the 1970s? I felt it was my responsibility at least to make them known now.

88        Caveney had summoned the courage to report O’Neill’s abuse of the late 1970s and early 1980s to the Marist UK hierarchy in 1993. From his book and my subsequent enquiries, I now know without any doubt that O’Neill committed and admitted the abuse and was ‘retired’ on ‘health grounds’ by the Marist Fathers under the direction of their then UK Superior, Father Austin Horsley, and others unknown. O’Neill was then dispatched to a clinic in the USA for ‘treatment’ of an undisclosed disorder, presumably paid for out of Marist charitable funds. (St Luke’s Institute, Maryland – also with a ‘colourful’ history of its own.)

89        Caveney did not want his parents, then both still alive, to know what had happened to him at SMC and did not insist the police be notified. The Marists therefore, disingenuously, negligently and self-servingly in my view, took this to mean that they could conceal O’Neill’s abuse from everyone, including, allegedly, his lay replacement as SMC Headmaster in 1993, Mick Finley and all subsequent principals, as well as from other senior Marists, among them Father Wynn and Father Peter Corcoran, who, I understand, in 2011 succeeded Wynn as Regional Marist Superior in the UK. (NB: I discovered late in the drafting of this account that the English Marist Superior from 2000 to 2008 was one Alan Williams, who was ordained Bishop of Brentwood in 2014. Whether or when he had knowledge of O’Neill’s abuse, or if he can shed any light on its continued concealment, I do not know.)

90        As noted in the LT, the Marists’ deception was so deep and prolonged that when the then Principal of SMC 6th Form College in 2008 proposed naming a new Arts Building after O’Neill, the Marists did not intervene to stop him. Nor evidently did they advise against the naming of the College’s annual ‘Kevin O’Neill Prize for the Highest Performing Student in Year 12’.

91        The Marists’ contempt here for Caveney and for any other, as yet unknown, victims of O’Neill, or for that matter for the SMC students and their families who continued to trust them long after the Marists were told about O’Neill’s abuse in 1993, I found quite breathtaking.





Questions to answer

92        In the light of what I still only partially knew in 2017, there seemed to me to be any number of glaring, unresolved questions, the answers to which should by rights and by then have been in the public domain, among them:

  • How was O’Neill able in the 1970s and 1980s freely to groom and to sexually abuse pupils at SMC when he was priest, teacher and deputy headmaster and then headmaster/principal?
  • Why did O’Neill’s behaviour go undetected for so long?
  • What Catholic, Marist, government, local education authority or other regulatory oversight of the SMC was there in O’Neill’s time to prevent and detect this kind of abuse by a senior member of a self-appointed religious teaching order like the Marists?
  • How was it that his fellow Marists (some of whom lived in the same house), as well as every other responsible adult at SMC, were unaware of O’Neill’s grooming activities? If they were aware, why did they not ‘blow the whistle’ on him?
  • How were senior Marists able, unchallenged, to concoct the lie about O’Neill’s illness and remove him from post of principal over the heads of the then governing body?
  • If he was not, why wasn’t O’Neill’s successor as principal told the real reason for O’Neill’s removal? (He was after all being handed an enormous reputational and professional risk by the Marists.)
  • Did whoever Caveney reported the abuse to in the Marists take advice from their own superiors in the catholic church and/or their legal advisors before deliberately concealing the sexual abuse of a teenage pupil?
  • When were subsequent Marist superiors, including SMC governor Father Noel Wynn and Father Peter Corcoran, who are still active in the Marists, told about O’Neill’s abuse and its concealment?
  • Why did the Marists allow SMC principals to institute an annual student prize in O’Neill’s name and to name a prestigious new arts building in honour of him decades after the Marists were made aware of his abuse?
  • What action has the Marist hierarchy and/or the Diocese of Middlesbrough taken against the English Marists in relation to their decades-long concealment of sexual abuse by one of their Headmasters?
  • When did key regulators, including the Department for Education, the Charity Commission and the police, first become aware of O’Neill’s abuse and its concealment by the Marist Fathers and what action have they taken in relation to the Marists since then, or at least since it became public knowledge in 2017?
  • What are the current governance arrangements around the Marists and other religious teaching orders that would ensure such abuse would nowadays be prevented or at least promptly detected and dealt with?

93        Whatever the answers to these questions, I would contend that O’Neill’s sexual abuse was a criminal offence that should have led to prosecution; and that his grooming behaviour, whilst not classified as an offence at the time, constituted, at the least, gross professional misconduct that should have led to his dismissal from SMC, expulsion from the Marist Fathers and to his ‘laicization’ from the priesthood. This should also have been made public immediately the Marists became aware of it, in 1993 at the latest, if only properly to inform all stakeholders at SMC and the Marist’s own charity, and to encourage any others who had suffered similar abuse to come forward and testify, as I would certainly have done.

94        All Marists with governance responsibility who, at the time and subsequently, were aware of the concealment in 1993 and who did not report this to the police or to other relevant regulators, were therefore also in my view equally guilty of gross professional misconduct and should themselves have been subject to appropriate disciplinary action. They should in no circumstances have continued to be entrusted with the care and education of young children in the publicly funded schools, including SMC, in which to this day they have significant governance roles.

95        It will come as no great surprise that in spite of my putting many, very specific questions to relevant individuals and organisations over the past three years, the full, clear, unambiguous answers to most of these questions remain a mystery.

96        This is thanks in my opinion to persistent, deliberate evasiveness and/or strategic incuriosity on the part of the international Marist hierarchy, the Middlesbrough Diocese, the Department for Education (DfE) and the Charity Commission (CC). I have found over the last three years that, to each of these, proper scrutiny, investigation and accountability are simply time and cost they do not want to spend, and which represent, at best, a large and particularly messy can of worms that they prefer to leave unopened.

97        In the following sections I will try as briefly as possibly to summarise the main interactions I have had with the organisations that either have a direct responsibility for overseeing the SMC Marists’ or who, in my view, have a governance or regulatory responsibility to hold them to account. I will also highlight as I see them some key outcomes and lessons.

98        I now have a substantial file of detailed correspondence covering a three-year period, though quicker and better responses from the Marists and their supposed regulators would have cut down the volume and taken considerably less time and effort on my part. I came painfully to learn however that procrastination and the withholding of information are all part of the game.

99        I would eventually like my documents to be properly archived, say with the IICSA, so that they or any other serious, bona fide researchers, journalists, or even victims of abuse to whom it is relevant, can, if it would help, have access to them.



The Marist Fathers and the Diocese of Middlesbrough

“The only way we can deal with [sexual abuse by priests] is to tell the truth, the truth has to be told, has to be admitted – that’s the first and most important part of the process. As with anything we have to recognise our faults, recognise where we have gone wrong.”

Terence Drainey, Bishop of Middlesbrough, Interview with BBC Tees, July 2009

100      I began in October 2017 by writing to the Marists’ with requests for initial clarifications about the O’Neill case and was referred to their designated Safeguarding Coordinator (SC) at the Diocese of Middlesbrough, to which the Marists are organisationally attached for the purposes of their safeguarding systems. This led to further questions and then to an extended correspondence over the following three years with the SC, the Department for Education (DfE), my MP, the Charity Commission (CC), the Marists themselves and the current management at SMC.

101      The current Bishop of Middlesbrough, Terence Drainey, was appointed in November 2007 and his reassuring assertion quoted above was made in 2009. This was the year after SMC was allowed by the Marists to name its new arts building in honour of the admitted child sex abuser O’Neill, and eight years before his name was removed from it in the aftermath of Graham Caveney’s memoir.

102      His appointment was also made four years before O’Neill died in 2011, when Marist Father and former Superior, Austin Horsley, fully aware of O’Neill’s actions,  officiated (for it was he) at his requiem mass, extolling his ‘fine singing voice’ and neglecting to mention that he had sexually groomed and masturbated upon a teenage pupil whilst Headmaster at SMC.

103      On the occasion of SMC’s 90th anniversary in 2015, Marist Father Alois Greiler in his keynote address to the school also felt it perfectly appropriate to quote O’Neill warmly and at length, some 22 years after O’Neill admitted his abuse to the English Marist leadership, and, even more astonishingly, after Fr Corcoran in November 2014 had allegedly and at last made full disclosure of O’Neill’s abuse to SMC’s then Principal, Chair of Governors and Chaplain/Safeguarding Officer.

104      When pondering the Bishop’s 2009 pronouncement we might therefore be forgiven for asking ourselves, in the vein of Pontius Pilate (John 18:38), “What is truth?”.

             Marist governance, management and regulatory framework

105      When I was a schoolboy, there were three Marist secondary schools in England, at Blackburn, Middlesbrough and Hull, with priests as heads and teachers. Today the aging Marist order retains governance roles and responsibilities at Catholic Colleges and educational trusts in those areas but has no teaching presence. Until fairly recently, Father Noel Wynn was also a governor of the Marist private girls’ school in Sunninghill.

106      In my time at school the Marists were a ‘law unto themselves’ in the UK Catholic clerical ecology. For line management purposes, the UK Marists today report to a European Superior who reports to a Marist global Superior, who in turn reports to the Vatican. For a period, again until recently, the Marists also had management responsibility for the RC Marian shrine at Walsingham. All the UK Marists are quite elderly now and it is highly likely the order here will be allowed by the RC church to shrink and die away naturally over the next few years.

107      The Marists are also Trustees of two associated charities. The St Mary’s College Charitable Trust is the legal entity under which SMC operates as a FE college. This Trust is funded mainly by government grant and is what is known as an ‘exempt charity’, ie it must abide by the governance, accounting and other standards required by CC, but it does not come under its direct regulation.

108      The Principal Regulator for the SMC Trust is the Secretary of State for Education (SoS), and he or she has the power to commission an investigation and report by the CC into the Trust, say for any potential contravention of their standards. This kind of ‘arm’s length’ governance structure grew out of successive governments’ policies to deregulate the provision of state education and to promote the influence of religions upon children by the proliferation of ‘faith schools’.

109      The other is the Marist Fathers’ own charity, funded mainly from its members’ own salaries and pensions, other donations and legacies, which pays for the priests’ personal accommodation, care and living expenses. When I began my enquiries in 2017 this was registered as Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) Charitable Trust, no. 235412. In July 2018 it was reconstituted as a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO), no. 1179085. This charity comes directly under the regulation of the CC.

110      It seemed to me in 2017 therefore, that even if anarchy had reigned when I was at school, here at least was a robust governance structure to which I could take my concerns and which could exercise some effective accountability. I was wrong.

             The Simison Case

111      When I first spoke to Middlesbrough Diocese’ SC in October 2017 about my own experience with O’Neill, I felt it was important that my fears about Simison and his potential risk needed also to be disclosed. I did not however wish to get Simison’s ‘hands-on’ approach out of proportion or to pre-empt anyone else’s judgement about what he had done. I therefore simply described Simison’s actions, without naming him and without my own interpretation, and asked the SC what he would do were a current pupil to report that to him today. He unhesitatingly told me that he would contact the police and have the incident investigated.

112      It was only at this point that I named Simison and the SC then made the initial police referral. This encouraged me that all my other concerns about the Marists would be taken seriously by the Diocese. Sadly, this was to be the only appropriate, positive action they were to take against any Marist either before or since I made my complaints.

113      I then had to chase up the police investigators myself for several weeks, given their initially slow and uncoordinated response. In February 2018 I made a Police statement of what had happened in class and Simison was eventually interviewed under caution in May 2018.

114      Simison presented a prepared, written statement denying any child abuse at any time and asserting that any physical touching of children at SMC was consistent with what was then normal and acceptable corporal punishment. He then offered ‘no comment’ to my specific allegations.

115      In the absence of forensic or other witness evidence, the police could understandably take no further action. At least my account now sits on a Police file in the event that any other victim eventually comes forward. Whilst Simison’s actions are important context here, and I stand by my account of what he did, this case-study focuses mainly upon the Marist Fathers and their response to Headmaster O’Neill’s admitted grooming and abuse of a child under his care at SMC.

116      I make a few further observations about the police’s responses to my concerns in paragraphs 214 to 219 below.

             The O’Neill Case

117      At Appendices 1 and 2 I have reproduced in full all of the substantive correspondence by letter between me and the Middlesbrough Diocese and the Secretary of the Marist Fathers’ charity in relation to the O’Neill case. Read from beginning to end, they are an accurate reflection of the progress and development of my questions and concerns, the completeness and quality of the response I received and of the information I was able to glean between October 2017 and January 2019. I have redacted the personal names of the correspondents, though not their official designations, to reflect my view that they were relaying to me the stories given to them by the Marists and their professional advisers rather than expressing their own first-hand knowledge or opinions.

118      In the following paragraphs I will summarise some of the more important matters arising from that correspondence.

The victim is to blame

119      The be all and end all of the Marists’ defence for their decades-long concealment of O’Neill’s abuse is that this was his victim, Graham Caveney’s, wish and ‘stipulation’ when he finally reported the abuse in 1993. If you accept that this is a valid and justified explanation, there is no further cause to be concerned about it or anything else that followed from it.

120      Caveney himself has stated that indeed he did not want his parents to know at the time – something with which I entirely identify and understand. He does however say in his LT interview that ‘…looking back he should have been reported to the police.’, and in his memoir (p.298) he writes, ‘The protection officer says that you [O’Neill] were worried about me, though presumably not worried enough to organize an apology or even a public admission of guilt.’

121      In 2014 Caveney also made a financial claim against the Marists for the abuse, which they settled out of court. I have not discussed any of this with Caveney; it is a private matter and the details are rightly his own business. For my own part, I believe without reservation that he did whatever he reasonably could at every stage in his experiences, as a child during the abuse itself, which took place under the noses of the Marists in Blackburn at the time, through to his disclosure as a damaged and traumatised adult in 1993, and to his hard-won and powerful memoir in 2017. I do not know what settlement with him the Marists made, but given his ordeals it could never be enough.

122      Unequivocally though, I do not accept the Marists’ excuses for their lies and deceptions, nor that they acted ‘in good faith’.

123      Caveney was a teenager when in the care of the Marists and being abused by their Headteacher O’Neill. It is to that teenager and to the hundreds at the time, before and since in their schools that the Marists in my view owed the duty to disclose the abuse, report O’Neill to the police and to discipline him and any other priest complicit in the abuse and/or any cover-up.

124      The duty of care to the victim as an adult once he reported the abuse was to my mind a linked but separate matter properly to be negotiated among the victim, his own independent support and advice network, the police and the courts. The Marists’ so-called ‘compliance with the victim’s wishes’ in this case was to me evidently self-serving, designed and intended to avoid scandal, to frustrate further disclosures by other possible victims and to mitigate the risks of any further potential financial, legal or even criminal consequences. Their blatant conflict of interest should immediately have disqualified the Marists from this decision-making process. Had they genuinely the victim’s interests at heart they would have disqualified themselves.

125      I do not speak for Graham Caveney, but neither do I believe that anyone in his position or state of mind at the time should reasonably have been expected to rely upon the Marist’s ‘good faith’ to navigate this next traumatic step in his experience of abuse.

126      I empathise and identify entirely with Caveney’s desire to shield his devoutly Catholic parents from the knowledge that their child had been sexually abused by a priest whom they and many others (including me) knew and trusted. This emotional dynamic has been and continues to be exploited by abusive clergy in churches and schools the world over to facilitate their grooming and abuse and ensure its concealment. It was exploited by O’Neill. It is a textbook abuse enabler, and it is horribly ironic that it is here being made to serve as a kindness by the Marists acting on the ‘stipulation’ of the victim. This is just another variation on classic victim-blaming.

127      Doubtless I will be accused by some of being guilty of ‘hindsight’ and being ‘wise after the event’. I would simply ask them, who at the time was to be relied upon, professionally, independently and selflessly, to show wisdom or foresight? If it had been them or their own children on the receiving end of O’Neill’s abuse, how would they have expected the disclosure to have been managed?

             It was a long time ago

128      Explicitly or implicitly, throughout all my investigations I have met with an exasperated sense from those I have dealt with that ‘this was all a very long time ago’; that the Marists, involved or otherwise, are now deceased or old and infirm; that they are no longer directly involved with children; that current safeguarding arrangements are second to none and have been signed off by the regulators; and that cases like O’Neill’s could not happen now.

129      As I had patiently to explain to the Marist charity’s Secretary, the only reason we were addressing these issues at such a distance in time was the persistent, intentional cover-up of O’Neill’s abuse by the Marist Fathers. People will inevitably have died in such an intervening period, though some, including other potential victims, may not have, and they may also yet be living with their trauma. For victims, their abuse does not get left behind the moment it happens nor does it forego scrutiny in the years to come because it becomes tiresome to the abusers, their enablers or defenders. The age and health status of the surviving Marists are neither here nor there. Marist abusers paid no respect to the ages of the young people whose lives they damaged beyond repair.

130      In my view, the Marists’ responsibility for their misconduct and their mismanagement of the abuse case reported to them in 1993 has also been passed down the line of responsibility over time, from Superior to Superior and Trustee to Trustee insofar as they could reasonably have been expected to exercise proper governance and due diligence in the management of the case and the way that it has been communicated to the appropriate authorities and other stakeholders.

131      The Marists’ actions and inactions, if only since the appointment of the current Bishop of Middlesbrough in 2007 as described above, should be sufficient to demonstrate that the Marists’ culpability as responsible individuals, as a charity and as a religious order is very much of the here and now.

             Father Austin Horsley enters the arena

132      The role of former Marist Superior, Father Austin Horsley in removing O’Neill from SMC in 1993 over the heads of the governing body and in enforcing the subsequent concealment of his abuse, was disclosed to me for the first time at my meeting with the current European Marist Superior, Father Martin McAnaney, on 31 August 2018, some nine months after the Middlesbrough Diocese’ SC’s reply to my first letter.

133      This meeting was arranged, somewhat unexpectedly, by the SC after a long interval in our correspondence and was held at the Marists’ Notre Dame de France church in London. The SC and the Chair of Middlesbrough Diocese Safeguarding Commission, Dr Dianne Swiers were also there. Fr McAnaney informed me of Horsley’s involvement, that he had been allowed to vet and contribute to the SC’s reply to my initial letters – and that he had died in April 2018.

134      The meeting was friendly and business-like and did elicit apparently sincere expressions of regret From Fr McAnaney and Dr Swiers; but otherwise the message was, ‘nobody knew, nothing could be done, we wouldn’t do this now’, etc. There had been no sanctions and nobody had been held to account in the Marists at all.

135      It subsequently dawned on me that it was only with Fr Horsley safely deceased that the meeting had been arranged or his part in the cover-up disclosed. This was galling enough, but an online search after the meeting then also turned up an obituary of Horsley in the Middlesbrough Diocesan Catholic Voice, August 2018, written by Horsley’s Marist colleague, friend and successor Fr Peter Corcoran. In the obituary, Corcoran notes that “…among [Horsley’s] many achievements, there were two strands that made up most of his life – education and administration in the Marists. […] He was a man of many gifts…”. Be that as it may, Corcoran finds no room in his eulogy for Horsley’s deliberate, decades-long concealment of the sexual grooming and abuse of a child in the Marists’ care by Headteacher O’Neill, of which by 2014 at the latest Corcoran was fully aware.

136      If I did not already have my reservations, this is the point at which I became fully aware of the extent to which as a complainant I was being ‘managed’ by the Marists and their advisers. I also began to doubt that the current governance and safeguarding processes were as state-of-the-art and robust as they were keen to have me believe. In spite of his role in the O’Neill cover-up, to my knowledge, at the time of his death Horsley was still a Trustee of the Marists’ charity and, even though there was a yawningly obvious conflict of interest, he had in late 2017 and early 2018 been allowed to oversee the replies to my questions that had been channelled through the Diocesan SC.

             Legal gymnastics

137      In the Marist Secretary’s letters to me of 7 December 2018 and 3 January 2019, they include a fair amount of legalese, describing with no great clarity, and frankly doubtful relevance, the corporate structures and responsibilities as they see them of the Marist’s charity and its relationship to SMC’s changing corporate structures since 1925. I think they are suggesting that basic standards of governance did not apply to the Charity in 1993 or before, that any individual Marist who might have been responsible for any wrongdoing is now dead, and that as a Charity the Marists could not be held corporately responsible in any case.

138      In their letter of 3 January 2019 the Secretary also states: “When in earlier years the College(s) employed Marist priests as teachers, they became employees and were subject to the employer/employee relationship and appropriate supervisory and disciplinary structures that were the responsibility of the governing body of the College.” Given that the Marists also appointed those governors, this simply means that the Marists as teachers were accountable to the same Marists as priests and charitable trustees. And the mystery deepens as to why there was ineffective governance whilst O’Neill practised his abuse unhindered.

139      People who know more about such things than I do can make of that what they will. My focus is whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Marist Fathers qualify now or since at least 1993 as fit and proper persons to own and run publicly funded UK schools, or to hold charitable status, by the criteria and in the estimation of the Department for Education (DfE), the Charity Commission (CC) or even by the basic standards of governance and accountability prevailing at any time during the Marists’ tenure at SMC. I would argue they are not. The DfE and the CC have elected to look away.

140      The Secretary also refers to the Marists’ allegedly diligent adherence to the RC church’s own Canon Law throughout this episode. Neither am I an authority on this, but if Canon Law permits unsanctioned and unpunished the Marists’ actions and  behaviours in this case, it explains a great deal about the prevalence of systemic child abuse within the church over such long periods of time. In any case, and as I also explained to the Secretary, the invocation of Canon Law here is an irrelevance because it does not supersede, or in any way stand in for, the rights and duties enshrined in any branch of English law; including, I would add, the statutory requirements for the proper management and administration of a charity or a school.

141      It is also obvious to me that the letters partially drip-feeding me the information I was asking for whilst at the same time seeking to legitimise the Marists’ actions, had been heavily combed over and edited by the Marists’ legal advisers before being released to me. Doubtless, legal and other professional advisers will also have had some knowledge and involvement with the cover-up since day-one. I have no idea who these people are, what their input has been, or for that matter their charge on the Marists’ charitable or any Diocesan funds. I do nevertheless wonder at the elasticity of professional ethics in such cases.

142      What I do take specific exception to, is the condition and implied threat that concludes the Marist Secretary’s letter to me of 7 December 2017 (Appendix 2, p.58, para 31), vis  “With respect, the contents of this letter are strictly private, confidential and personal to its recipients and should not be disclosed or passed to any third party without first seeking prior consent from the Trustees.”

143      Patent lack of respect to one side, I owe no duty of confidentiality to the Marists, contractual or otherwise, and everything I have written or disclosed in this case study is to my mind clearly in the public interest. I have not sought consent from the Marist Trustees for writing this account or including their letters. It is precisely this culture of coercion and secrecy on the part of the Marists, as a charity and as a children’s education provider in receipt of charitable and public funds, that is a central theme of this case study.

144      This attempt to gag me also suggests very strongly that the Marists’ current safeguarding arrangements are by no means as effective and state-of-the-art as they continually claim them to be – nor as the Charity Commission or Department for Education seem to accept they are. Silencing whistle-blowers seems very much still to be an instinctive reflex and priority for them.

             Good governance was not required

145      The Marists’ Secretary has also presented me with a history lesson in the development of the formal governance framework for charitable associations such as the Marists. The gist of their argument is that in 1993, prior to the development of today’s Charity Commission guidance, sound, ethical governance was not a requirement and that even now it is merely voluntary.

146      I, on the other hand, would argue that the regulatory environment even for smaller charities pre-1995 had a good deal less of the ‘Wild West’ or of a ‘Paedophile’s Charter’ about it than the Secretary would have me believe. I would argue that even if RC Canon Law was flexible enough to accommodate their actions, the less evolved or formalised legal and ethical framework in which a UK charitable trust operated in that era of not so long ago would still have found the Marist’s self-serving prevarications about one of their own member’s sexual abuse of a child to be beyond the pale.

147      “There is very little information available”, perhaps translated into Latin, might plausibly have been the Marists’ motto. I do not know if Caveney’s lawyers had any luck discovering any documentation relevant to O’Neill’s removal from SMC, but I have been told that the Marists have ‘very limited information’ relating to Caveney’s disclosure and the Marists’ action in 1993. I have also been told by SMC that they have no records at all of the Marists’ asking them not to name their Arts building in honour of O’Neill, nor of Father Corcoran’s alleged disclosure of O’Neill’s abuse to key managers in 2014. Accurate and complete record keeping, especially of such important discussions and decisions is, I would argue, a non-negotiable element of basic governance and not some new-fangled, optional requirement dreamed up in the 21st century.

148      In passing, I would also observe that two major and well-publicised reports into child abuse, safeguarding and the UK Roman Catholic Church (Nolan Report 2001, Cumberlege Report 2007) seem also to have escaped the Marists’ attentions along the way.

149      According to the Secretary, the Marists’ charity did not even employ an external part-time bookkeeper until the late 1990s. In what sense was this amateur, unregulated band of clerics in any way qualified or competent to be given charge of the education or wellbeing of thousands of young people over such a long period of time? By what criteria was their suitability assessed at the outset or at any time since?

150      And yet the Marists for many decades did own and operate three large, publicly funded schools in England. Their members have wielded onerous responsibilities; O’Neill was somehow assessed fit to hold the office of Headmaster. Father Wynn and Father Corcoran have both held high office in the English Marists between the 1970s and today, and several other surviving members of the order are or have been Trustees of the Marist charity, with all the real responsibilities that that role brings. Late in drafting this account I also learned that the Marists’ Superior in England 2000-2008 was one Alan Williams, who was ordained Bishop of Brentwood in 2014. So far as I know, Father Simison has never achieved any rank higher than ‘Otto von Botto’. As for the remainder of today’s Marists, I have no idea who they are or what their history might be.

151      Good governance, with accurate, complete record-keeping, is designed, amongst other things, to deter and detect the wrongdoer and to protect the innocent. Without these basic systems and controls, anyone in an organisation can find themselves under suspicion, whether rightly or wrongly. If any other Marist feels they are being unfairly tarred by me or anyone else with the same brush as O’Neill, Horsley and their accomplices, I respectfully suggest that they take this up with the Marist hierarchy, which must surely have some duty of care towards them, however little it feels it has to anyone else.

             Only obeying orders

152      Somewhat out of the blue, in their letter of 7 December, the Secretary also offered a tangential, but I think telling, supplementary explanation for the way Caveney’s abuse disclosure was handled: “Fr. Horsley’s high-ranking position in 1993 allowed his actions to remain unquestioned and for secrecy and concealment of the allegation of sexual abuse. […]”. I could not have put this better myself.

153      As I replied at the time, this was no excuse for the other adults around Horsley, several of whom did know about O’Neill’s abuse from 1993 onwards, and who in several cases held their own positions of responsibility eg as headteachers, superiors, trustees or governors, to stand by and allow the cover-up to go unchallenged. The ‘only obeying orders’ defence has a terrible history, and had this been offered by an erring child at St Mary’s College over many decades in the past, it would likely have been met by a furious assault from a Marist priest with a leather strap.

             Fit and proper persons?

154      Anyone can make up their own mind from reading my correspondence about whether the Marists Fathers’ conduct in the case of O’Neill’s sexual abuse of the schoolboy Graham Caveney meets generally accepted standards of governance and accountability, whether at the time or now. This is even before anyone considers my own experience of O’Neill’s grooming and of Simison’s wandering hands, or contemplates any other likely victims whose stories have been so far successfully suppressed because of the Marists’ intentional lies and deceptions.

155      O’Neill and the Marists’ actions from at least the time when I was at SMC until today have made it quite plain to me that the Marist Fathers were and are not fit and proper persons to hold any role in children’s education, publicly funded or otherwise. They should be removed from all involvement or influence in schools, they should have their charitable status rescinded, and all relevant stakeholders should have the Marists’ culture and concealment of child sexual abuse reported and made actively and fully available to them by the responsible regulatory agencies.

156      I have put this to the Marist hierarchy and to the Diocese of Middlesbrough, both of which have declined to take or initiate any such action. I have also put my findings and proposals to the Department for Education and the Charity Commission and I summarise my correspondence with each of them in the next sections of this case study.


The Department for Education (DfE)

157      The DfE’s response to my concerns has the virtue of simplicity if nothing else. The Marists as Trustees of SMC 6th Form College are nothing to do with them.

158      My correspondence with DfE spans the period February 2018 to May 2020. During this time I also notified my complaint to the MP for Blackburn, Kate Hollern, in the first instance, and then to my own MP, Fabian Hamilton, asking them for assistance with it.

159      Ms Hollern’s PA replied and, quite correctly, informed me that I needed to engage my own parliamentary representative in such an enquiry. I also discovered later that a close relative of Ms Hollern is a senior management employee at SMC. Categorically, I do not assert or imply any involvement by the Blackburn MP or her relative in the Marists’ dishonesties; but the relationship is an objective, organisational conflict of interest in relation to the issues I raised with her and it should ideally have been disclosed to me at this point. I do not believe this had any material impact on my dealings with SMC or the Marists, but it is another aspect of governance awareness that could have been better.

160      I will not reproduce all the email or letter correspondence I had with the DfE and the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA), partly because much of it felt like the classic exhausting and unproductive ‘run-around’ beloved of Civil Service parodists down the decades, and because I was obliged to repeat myself several times. I attach one letter at Appendix 3 as an example of the issues that I raised for the attention of the Secretary of State (SoS) for Education.

161      In this letter, because I had had cause to refer to SMC’s annual financial reports, I also alerted the DfE to a number of misgivings these had given me about the College’s financial sustainability, financial management and planning, accounting practices and governance.

162      As already explained, the St Mary’s College Charitable Trust is the legal entity under which SMC operates as a FE college. This Trust is funded mainly by government grant and is what is known as an ‘exempt charity’, ie it must abide by the governance, accounting and other standards required by CC, but it does not come under its direct regulation. The Principal Regulator for the SMC Trust is the SoS, and he or she has the power to commission an investigation and report by the CC into the Trust, say for any potential contravention of the CC’s standards.

163      I have based my understanding of the Principal Regulator role upon the February 2014 Government documents:

  • Information note to FE colleges – appointment of the Secretary of State as Principal Regulator of FE colleges as exempt charities, and its
  • Memorandum of understanding between the Charity Commission and the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) in his role as Principal Regulator of Further Education Corporations in England.

164      The DfE SoS took over the BIS FE role in one of the innumerable reorganisations of the civil service and/or education sectors down the years. I have not been able to determine whether the Principal Regulator role has been in any other way modified since these were enacted.

165      In an email to me in February 2018 a civil servant in the Ministerial and Public Communications Division stated that “… FE colleges are autonomous, independent organisations, incorporated under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992: as such, they are responsible for their policies and procedures and the management of their operations. The government does not have the right to interfere in these policies.”. In May 2018, another civil servant in the same Division emailed that, “… whilst the Secretary of State is Principal Regulator of sixth form college corporations, the Secretary of State is not Principal Regulator for the Marists or the underlying trust.”

166      The idea that the government has ‘no right’ to intervene in a publicly funded education provider’s policies was one bombshell, and news to me. The other was that the SoS had no jurisdiction as Principal Regulator over the exempt charitable trust that owns and operates SMC. Whereas the civil servant seems to be asserting that the SMC “college corporation” (regulated by SoS) and the “underlying trust” (not regulated by the SoS) are two separate entities, they appear to me to be one and the same entity and indeed subject to SoS regulation. This however was another of the DfE’s dead ends and I have received no further explanation for the distinction they make here.

167      In any event, the DfE discerned nothing untoward in the Marists’ behaviour in relation to O’Neill’s abuse and as the Trustees of the SMC exempt charitable FE company. Perhaps the lowest water mark in my correspondence with the DfE is the letter to my MP from then Minister of State for Apprenticeship and Skills, the Right Honourable Anne Milton MP (Appendix 4) in May 2018. In relation to the Marists’ management of the O’Neill abuse case the Minister states:

“I was sorry to read of Mr Murray’s concerns. As he is aware, the Secretary of State is the Principal Regulator for sixth form college corporations. Where there are concerns that fall within the Secretary of State’s duties in this role, he may refer sixth form college corporations to the Charity Commission for them to exercise their powers under the Charities Act 2011. I can confirm that the Secretary of State has not referred St Mary’s College to the Charity Commission.”

168      Full stop. Neither in this letter nor in any other correspondence from the DfE or ESFA are my very specific concerns and misgivings about the O’Neill case directly referred to or addressed; I would also say that the last sentence in that paragraph displays an intentional vacuousness shading into contempt for me and for the serious matters I had brought to the Minister’s attention.

169      Tellingly, the Minister seemed a good deal more exercised by the financial issues to which I had alluded. This is a whole separate subject; but suffice it to say that the Marists have now run the College financially into the ground in their attempts to ‘keep it Catholic’, whilst in the meantime pursuing some doomed and hare-brained ‘recovery schemes’ and burning their way through any number of Principals, senior managers, teaching staff, chairpersons and governors in the process. This means that, probably this year, the Marists will at last have been removed from control of SMC, but only because of financial and administrative incompetence and religious obstinacy – not because of their failure to prevent, manage or properly disclose at least one case of child sexual abuse.

170      In July 2018 I met with my MP face to face in order to secure through him a serious and substantive response from the DfE about my concerns. He listened carefully and empathetically and said that he shared my concerns sufficiently to arrange a meeting personally between himself and the Minister. I took some heart from this that the parliamentary system would succeed where simple correspondence had not. I was wrong again.

171      My MP (slogan: “Fighting for fairness, justice and equality”) emailed me on 29 September 2018, “With regard to the proposed meeting with the Minister given the tone of her reply to me it is very unlikely that she will agree to meet to discuss St Mary’s as it appears that she believes that the issues you have raised are not the responsibility of her Department. I know that this is not the result you would have hoped for.” To say the least. And with this he gave up the fight. I however could not.

172      In amongst the DfE’s ‘stonewalling’ responses and their tactic of attrition in wearing down complainants, they also directed me down other dead ends, ie:

  • By defaulting to an appeal to ‘current safeguarding arrangements’ when these had no relevance at all to my specific concerns.
  • Referring me to other bodies or agencies that I had already explained to them were not appropriate, eg the ESFA, the Police, local authorities.
  • By insisting that I needed to ‘exhaust’ SMC’s own complaints procedures before coming to the DfE. This in spite of SMC’s obvious conflict of interest, the Marist presence on its Board of Governors and the historical context of the Marists’ actions.

173      Vainly supposing that the DfE might finally act if I did jump through the SMC complaint hoop, that is exactly what I did next, and I summarise that in the next section of the case study.

174      After a few false starts and another drawn-out correspondence (and a little surprisingly given my experience so far) the then Principal and Vice-Chair at SMC in November 2019 partially upheld the formal complaint I had put to them. My full complaint was that the Marist Fathers had deliberately concealed the sexual abuse of a pupil and that this amounted to gross misconduct by the Marists as College governors and Trustees. SMC management upheld my complaint that the Marists had concealed the abuse, but declined to rule on whether this amounted to gross misconduct.

175      The outcomes that I had also asked for should my complaint be upheld were that the Marists be removed as College Trustees and governors and a full report of their misconduct made public. In fairness, I had never believed that College Managers, or even the Governing Body would have the power, authority or permission to deliver these outcomes given that most of them (however individually competent or blameless they might be) owed their appointment to the Marist Fathers themselves. I had already explained this to the DfE but it fell on quite a number of deaf ears.

176      At least now that I had gone through the SMC complaints process I had complied with the DfE’s procedural demands and also had a complaint decision to take back to them on which they could now proceed. In May 2020 I began another round of email correspondence with another set of DfE civil servants who began to send me around the same bureaucratic hamster wheel I had been on before.

177      In spite of the SMC complaint decision, the DfE concluded their correspondence with me simply by repeating some by now familiar refrains:

  • “…we are unable to add anything further to the information you have already been provided with.”
  • “(FE) colleges are autonomous, independent organisations, incorporated under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992: as such, they are responsible for their policies and procedures and the management of their operations. The government does not have the right to interfere in these policies.”

178      In other words, the Marists Fathers as FE Trustees were free to conceal the sexual abuse of one of their pupils by a Marist Headteacher, and the Government was powerless to scrutinise their actions, hold them to account or remove them from post. The mystery deepens even further as to how the predatory Marist paedophile O’Neill was able to achieve the office of SMC Principal and to have his abuse concealed for decades.

179      In their final email to me of 12 May 2020 the DfE observed that, “You are of course free to seek your own independent legal advice on this matter.” The word ‘free’ here is plainly a relative term. To a Government Department with bottomless, tax-filled pockets, legal advice may of course appear to be freely available and free of charge. I suspect that, deep down, they knew that it would not be so to a mere tax payer like me.

180      In my final email to the DfE on 13 May 2020 I did submit a formal complaint to them that they had ignored the specific questions that I had put to them and had failed to provide information that I had reasonably requested. I have to date received no response to this complaint.

181      Following this futile correspondence with the DfE, that had spanned over two years, I did contemplate taking my complaint about the DfE’s failure to address my concerns to the Parliamentary Ombudsman as a last resort. Realistically however, I could foresee only months more attrition and bureaucratic frustration, and still without a just outcome. Because no one in authority was prepared to do it, I therefore decided to document and report my findings myself and to make them available for others to make up their own minds about the rights and wrongs of the Marists’ actions and of their regulators’ incuriosity and failure to act.





St Mary’s College Governing Body

182      As I have already said, I had never intended to bring SMC’s current management team into my enquires or correspondence at all. They had their own present financial and educational challenges to be dealing with. Given the Marists’ power and authority as Trustees appointing most of the governors and thereby the senior staff, there was also an insurmountable organisational conflict of interest in asking them impartially to investigate or bring sanctions against the Marists. Emphatically, this does not imply on my part any doubt or question about the individual, personal integrity of any non-Marist member of the SMC management or governor team at the time of my enquiries.

             Freedom of Information request September 2018

183      At my meeting with European Marist Superior Fr Martin McAnaney in August 2018, he had told me that SMC had in fact been advised by the Marists in 2008 not to name the Arts building in honour of the child abuser Kevin O’Neill, though they had not given the College any reason for this. The College went ahead with the naming regardless. In addition, I still did not know exactly when the College had been informed about the abuse or by whom.

184      I therefore considered it appropriate to submit a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to the College asking for the specific information they held about these matters.

185      I received the following response from the then ‘Principal and CEO’:

Thank you for your letter dated 14th September. Having recently been appointed as the Principal/CEO of St Mary’s College I hope you can appreciate that much of the information you require is in the possession of former colleagues and/or governors, and as a result, it has taken me a little more time than anticipated to collate a response. From the work I have undertaken please find the College’s response below:

Who in the Marist Fathers advised the College not to name the building in honour of O’Neill?

We believe it was the Delegation Superior of the Marist Fathers.

Who at the College was advised by the Marists not to name the building in honour of O’Neill?

We believe it was the former Chair of the Governing Body that was advised by the Delegation Superior not to name the building in honour of Father O’Neill.

In what forum did the Management Team and/or Governing Body consider this advice? (Please provide relevant minutes of meetings in which the advice was considered and decision to proceed taken.)

I am unable to provide any information in relation to this matter. To Investigate this matter further would take up too much staff time as the former Principal, Vice Principal, Clerk and Chairperson of the Governing Body are no longer at the College.

Who was the Marist spokesperson quoted in the Lancashire Telegraph of 30th August 2017?

The Board of Trustees were quoted in the Lancashire Telegraph on 30th August 2017.

Who in the Marist Fathers eventually notified the College Management Team and/or Governing Body of O’Neill’s abusive behaviour?

The Safeguarding Representative for the Marist Fathers notified representatives of the Governing Body of Father O’Neill’s behaviour.

When did the Marist Fathers formally notify the Governing Body and Management Team of O’Neill’s abusive behaviour? (Please provide the relevant correspondence and meeting minutes that include reference to the notification and any discussion by the Governing Body.)

We believe that former members of the Governing Body were informed by Father Corcoran in his role as Designated Safeguarding Representative. We believe that the College does not hold any relevant correspondence or minutes in relation to this matter.

I do hope my response provides you with all the relevant information you require.

186      It is no exaggeration to say that this reply effectively provides none of the relevant information I required; although it does bear all the hallmarks of the wholly inadequate Marist governance standards with which I was becoming familiar. No responsible individuals, other than Fr Corcoran, are named, with only their designations given. There is no basic documentation, including ‘relevant correspondence or minutes’, for important College discussions and decisions in relation to the Arts building or to the disclosure of O’Neill’s abuse. Information posing a potentially high reputational risk to the College is not readily accessible to the Principal but is retained “… in the possession of former colleagues and/or governors …”.

187      As far as the then Principal/CEO and their answer to my FoI request were concerned, I realised I could go no further with them at that point. I also had my existing reservations about organisational conflicts of interest. I therefore thanked the Principal for what they had given me, wished them well, and went back to my other avenues of enquiry with the DfE and the Charity Commission.

             Complaint to SMC Governing Body

188      Against my better judgement (see para 172 above) and at the insistence of the DfE, I submitted a formal complaint against the Marists as Trustees of the College to SMC’s then Chair of Governors in June 2019. After some false starts, a few more ups and downs with the process and changes of personnel, this process was completed in March 2020.

189      Correspondence and meeting minutes are lengthy and detailed, but my complaint and the outcomes that I was seeking from it can be summarised very briefly.


The Marist Fathers as Trustees of SMC have deliberately concealed the sexual abuse of a pupil by the Marist Headmaster Father O’Neill, and

This amounts to gross misconduct by the Marist Fathers as Trustees od SMC.

Outcomes required:

The Marist Fathers be removed as Trustees and Governors of SMC, and

A report of their misconduct published to all relevant stakeholders.

190      In a letter to me postmarked 21 November 2019 the then Interim Principal and Vice Chair of Governors upheld the first part of my complaint but declined to address the second part. They explained they had no locus or powers to bring about my desired outcomes, something that I had always known and expected.

191      In their 21 November 2019 letter to me the interim Principal and Vice Chair of Governors also state that they had had spoken to Marist Governor, Fr Wynn and that “… he has confirmed that he was unaware at that time of the situation with Father O’Neill and the circumstances of his resignation …”.

192      My response to this was, “First of all, I would say that it would be more appropriate to say that he ‘denied he was aware…’ as ‘confirmed he was unaware’ implies something more precise and independently evidenced than what is expressed here. For instance, what might ‘at that time’ mean? It would be far more informative to know exactly when and from whom between 1993 and 2017 Fr Wynn learned of the abuse and its concealment. Given Fr Wynn’s relationships with O’Neill, Corcoran and the other Marists in positions of responsibility (it is a tiny order of priests) and his senior roles within the UK Marists over decades now, it would be then for regulators and those charged with College governance to evaluate on the balance of probabilities the plausibility of him having no knowledge at all until it was revealed to him ‘out of the blue’ when Graham Caveney’s book was published in 2017.” I have been given no reason by any party to my enquiries to alter this view.

193      Having exhausted the SMC complaints procedure, I then took their responses back to the DfE and my next steps from there can be picked up at para 173 above.

194      My complaint came in to SMC at a time of great financial and organisational turmoil for them. The upshot, as of writing, is that the College is no longer financially sustainable in its Marist incarnation (as I had also suggested to the DfE in February 2018). The various doomed attempts to keep the College Catholic have run their course and the Marists are to be removed from their role as Trustees and governors in any case. Needless to say, I do not believe that this absolves them from scrutiny or accountability for their concealment of at least one child’s sexual abuse.




The Charity Commission

195      The Marist Fathers’ are also Trustees and/or members of their own charity, funded mainly from its members’ own salaries and pensions, other donations and legacies, which pays for the priests’ personal accommodation, care and living expenses. When I began my enquiries in 2017 this was registered as Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) Charitable Trust, no. 235412. In July 2018 this was reconstituted as a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO), no. 1179085. This charity comes directly under the regulation of the Charity Commission (CC).

196      The bulk of this charity’s income derives from the Marist priests’ own salaries and pensions, committed to the order when they first join it. In 2016 for instance, the Charity’s income from salaries and pensions was £390k (2015, £431k), from donations £46k (2015, £52k) and from legacies £11k, (2015, £0). Extrapolated from this over 20 years, eg between 1993 and 2014, an estimate of the Marists’ donation income alone, ie excluding legacies, might reasonably approach £1m.

197      The role of the Charity Commission is to regulate and register charities in England and Wales. It produces guidance for trustees on how they should meet their legal duties and responsibilities.

198      On the website the CC also summarise their regulatory roles, several of which (extracts below) seemed to me to be relevant to my concerns:

Statutory objectives, functions and duties:

  • Increase public trust and confidence in charities.
  • Promote compliance by charity trustees with their legal obligations in exercising control and management of their charities.
  • Enhance the accountability of charities to donors, beneficiaries and the general public.
  • Encouraging and facilitating the better administration of charities.
  • Identifying and investigating apparent misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of charities and taking remedial or protective action in connection with such misconduct or mismanagement.

We are required by the Charities Act 2011 to ensure our regulatory engagement with charities is proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted.

As a public body, we must also have regard to best regulatory practice and a number of wider public law and statutory duties.

We work with other agencies, regulators and government departments to help achieve our statutory objectives, to complement our work and to minimise dual regulation. Where there is a problem within a charity that is being adequately addressed by another agency (or agencies), we may work with them to increase effective regulation.

199      The role of charity trustees is, amongst other things, to ensure that the charity operates strictly within the charitable objects set out in the legal trust deed establishing the charity, and to ensure that it operates at all times in the interests of its donors and beneficiaries. Neither must the charity operate outside any other relevant laws or regulations in force at any given time in its existence.

200      I would argue that the concealment of sexual abuse falls well outside the Marist Fathers’ charitable objects, and that, though it may have benefited the Marists as members of the charitable trust, it benefited no other stakeholder, beneficiary or otherwise. On the contrary, it acted to their detriment. It might also be argued that concealing the sexual abuse (as well as concealing the concealment) was a form of fraud upon donors and legators, some of whom may have been vulnerable themselves, by denying them informed consent when making their donations and therefore, in effect, obtaining money by deception. Though I put these legitimate concerns and questions to the CC, they did not directly or specifically address any of them.

201      With a heavy heart, I have included at Appendix 4 all the substantive correspondence I had with the Charity Commission between 11 February 2018 and 22 June 2019. As with my correspondence with Middlesbrough Diocese and the Marists, read from beginning to end, it is an accurate reflection of the progress and development of my questions and concerns, the completeness and quality of the response I received and of the information I was able to glean.

202      Throughout all my dealings with the parties to my enquiries, I have been at pains to set aside all emotions and personal feelings, to concentrate on finding out exactly what happened, and to draw fair and logical conclusions based on the available evidence, on my own experiences and, if necessary, on the balance of probabilities. When reviewing the Charity Commission correspondence I confess that more than at any other point in drafting this case study I felt an emotion of raw anger at both the substance and the attitude of their responses to my concerns.

203      The CC’s initial response letter alone (p.72) deserves a place in complaint management literature and folklore as an object lesson in how never in any circumstances to write to anyone about anything, let alone some 80 days after receiving a complaint about the concealment of child sexual abuse.

204      In my ‘Stage 2 challenge to the CC’s decision on my complaint I even went through their statutory objectives and functions under sections 14 and 15 of the Charities Act 2011, as well as the CC’s’ Regularity Statement’, indicating in detail where I thought they had failed to discharge their responsibilities. Again, no reference was made to these very specific concerns in any of their replies.

205      The CC must have had at least some direct conversation with the Marist Trustees, and they conclude that the only issues of concern were in relation to “communication” between the charity and SMC (“now much improved”) and the fact that “there could be a perception in respect of possible conflicts of interest in the way that the allegations were dealt with in the past when reported to [the Marist Fathers]. This last phrase is a miniature masterclass in the bureaucratic understatement that wilfully side-steps the uncomfortable issue. There are in fact any number of actual, self-evident, objective conflicts of interest in this case throughout the period 1993 to date, and arguably back to the 1970s.

206      It seems to me therefore that the CC have gullibly swallowed the Marists’ story ‘hook, line and sinker’, and I have to wonder what standards of enquiry and evidence, or of professional scepticism, they applied even to establish basic facts, let alone to lead them to their judgements and conclusions.

207      I cannot be certain, but I think that at least the CC may have encouraged the Marists finally to write to me in December 2018 with the fuller, if still unsatisfactory, account of their actions. I note that that letter was also copied to the CC.

208      In their conclusion and responses to my appeals the CC also repeatedly, and quite bafflingly, return to what they see as the Marists’ now satisfactory and “well developed” safeguarding procedures. Quite apart from the irrelevance of this to my actual complaint, I  remain unconvinced that retaining Fr Austin Horsley (who in 1993 had knowingly concealed the sexual abuse of a child) as a charity trustee until his death in 2018, and allowing him to vet my original complaint to the Marists, qualify as  satisfactory safeguarding practice. Nor does the Marists’ insistence that I did not disclose the content of their December 2018 letter “without seeking prior consent” from them seem to me the behaviour of an organisation committed to openness or accountability in the matter of child sexual abuse. Again, though I explicitly made these concerns known to the CC, they declined to respond to them.

209      To summarise, I complained to the CC about, as I saw it, the Marists’ failure to meet several requirements of their Trustee duties, and about the improper management and administration of their charity in relation to the concealment of O’Neill’s abuse. The CC’s response was half-hearted, dilatory, weak and unsatisfactory, failing even to address many of the issues I raised. I enumerated in more detail the powers and responsibilities they had failed to exercise and went through their two-stage decision review process. Still not having addressed my concerns, and rigidly fixating on the almost entirely irrelevant current safeguarding arrangements, all recourse to them was terminated by them at the end of the second  review stage.

210      As with the DfE, I did contemplate a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, but, not wishing to waste any more time in bureaucratic purgatory, I decided instead to draft my own account and make it available for the IICSA and any other interested parties to make up their own minds about the CC’s performance in this matter.

211      Not long after I had concluded my epic, if fruitless and exasperating, correspondence with the CC, I was drawn to an article in the Guardian newspaper, 3 September 2019, headlined, Trustee of UK charity ‘covered up abuse’. Might this, like the O’Neill case, also have been resolved by the CC simply to “issues in communication” and a “perception in respect of possible conflicts of interest”, with everything now fine because current safeguarding arrangements were satisfactory?

212      To the contrary. A Trustee of the Rigpa Fellowship, founded by the late Tibetan guru Sogyal Rimpoche, “was banned [by the CC] from working with charities for eight years”. The CC found that the Trustee had “knowledge of instances and allegations of improper acts and sexual and physical abuse against students”, and he “failed to take appropriate action in response to this information and is therefore responsible for misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity”.

213      The head of the commission’s investigation team said: “We are continuing to investigate concerns about this charity via our ongoing statutory inquiry. However, the safety and wellbeing of beneficiaries and those that come into contact with the charity must always be a priority for the trustees and staff of a charity. This trustee has been disqualified with immediate effect for failing in his duty to protect those who came into contact with the charity.” Very well put and well done, I thought; it is possible for the CC to live up to its responsibilities, to conduct a serious, in-depth investigation and to impose real, proportionate sanctions. But not, regrettably, in the Marists’ case. What was sauce for the Buddhist goose was not to be sauce for the Catholic gander.





The Police

214      My dealings with the police have related solely to my accusation against Fr Simison that he molested me when I was a schoolboy at SMC.

215      With O’Neill dead by 2017, he was obviously beyond the reach of the law for his abuse. The sexual grooming of a child was not a criminal offence in O’Neill’s time (it is now), so he could not have faced charges for that in any case. Neither, to this day, is it a criminal offence for an individual, or a charity such as the Marist Fathers, to fail to report the known or suspected abuse of a child. I understand that it is however a crime to act as an accessory by assisting an offender, eg to escape apprehension or prosecution, or by hindering an investigation, say by lying to the police. I do not know if these applied in O’Neill’s case.

216      My experience of the Police’s investigation of my complaint was mainly positive. At the outset, in late 2017 and early 2018 I had to chase them up myself in order to give my formal statement of Simison’s actions. Once they had taken my statement, there was then I think some debate amongst them about which area’s force should interview Simison under caution. Once that interview had taken place, I was promptly informed of its outcome and that no further steps could reasonably be taken, which I understood and accepted.

217      I was also encouraged to find that my concerns about Simison had been recorded in the systems both of both the national police operation that coordinates actions in relation to non-recent child abuse (Operation Hydrant), and the Lancashire Constabulary’s local operation (Operation Fervent).

218      Reflecting now, I think it would probably have been possible for the Police to have made a public appeal for other possible witnesses to Simison’s actions to come forward. For whatever reason they decided not to do so and I do not know what the protocol for that decision would have been.

219      Of the independent regulators that I had dealings with during my enquiries, the police were the only organisation to contact me in person by telephone either to update me on progress or to give me feedback about my concerns.

220      It is not appropriate here to name most of the officers with whom I had dealings, but I feel that I must pay tribute to one of them. Dave Groombridge a former detective working as a civilian member of the Operation Fervent team took the time both by email and telephone to contact me about progress and outcomes. He was professional, informative, kind and empathetic in his dealings with me, whilst frankly and sensitively acknowledging to me that nothing further could be done unless other witnesses or evidence were to be brought forward.

221      As I was drafting this account, I learned that in April 2020 Mr Groombridge had sadly died in the COVID-19 pandemic. I would therefore like here to record my simple but heartfelt gratitude for the time and care he took with me.











“Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness.”

Samuel Beckett, Vogue interview, 1969




Appendix 1

Correspondence with Diocese of Middlesbrough Safeguarding Coordinator

First letter to Marist Fathers 21 October 2017:

Dear Sir/Madam

Questions re alleged abuse by the late Father Kevin O’Neill SM

I was a pupil at the Marist St Mary’s College in Blackburn from 1970 to 1977. During that time, I was befriended by the then deputy Headmaster Father Kevin O’Neill. Whilst he did not abuse me sexually in any way, his behaviour might have been by today’s standards, and in my own eyes as an adult and parent looking back, construed as inappropriate or even a form of grooming leading up to some form of more serious abuse.

Imagine my shock when I read in the Lancashire Telegraph (LT) of 30 August 2017 the account given by Mr Graham Caveney in his book The Boy with the Perpetual Nervousness of behaviour toward him by Father O’Neill almost identical to his befriending of me, and of other pupils I knew, which did indeed culminate in sexual abuse.

Consequently, I have several questions for the Marist Fathers arising particularly from this passage in the LT article.

Fr O’Neill was never convicted of any of the offences mentioned in the book but was asked to leave the school and sent for therapy in the United States.

A spokesman for the Marist Order said: “This is a matter of profound regret.

“We condemn unreservedly anything which causes harm or distress to others. Abusive behaviour has absolutely no place in the Catholic Church, or anywhere in our society, and stands against every value and principle that we hold.

“The abuse by this individual happened in the late 1970s but we are deeply sorry for the pain and distress caused.

“As soon as the allegations were made, the individual was confronted, admitted his wrongdoing and was immediately removed from his post and left the school.

“The college was unaware of this when the performing arts block was named and all references to this individual at the college have now been removed, and we fully support the governing body’s decision to re-name the performing arts block.”




My questions:

  1. Was this statement in fact made to the LT by the Society of Mary, and if so by which of its officers?
  2. If the abuse was admitted, why was the matter not referred to the police by the Society?
  3. To which therapy provider in the United States was Father O’Neill sent?
  4. Why was the matter not more widely reported at the time so that other pupils who had been at risk (such as me) were made aware and could have come forward with their stories, whether abuse had occurred or not?
  5. How could the college possibly have been unaware of the true circumstances of Father O’Neill’s departure, given for example that, a) his place a headmaster was taken by his friend and close working colleague Michael Finley, and b) his close friend and long-time colleague Father Noel Wynn is to this day a governor of the school, had worked for many years at the school when I was there, had been head of the Marist college in Middlesbrough and is presumably a very senior UK Marist? (NB: By this I do not imply any knowledge or collusion by these individuals in any abuse by O’Neill, simply that I find it difficult to believe they would not have been made aware of the circumstances of his departure.)
  6. If the college was indeed unaware of the circumstances of O’Neill’s departure, why did the Society keep this from them?

This is obviously a serious matter, and I would appreciate if my legitimate concerns and questions were dealt with by you in and equally serious and prompt manner.

Yours faithfully

Damian Murray



Reply by Middlesbrough Diocese Safeguarding Coordinator 23 November 2017

Dear Mr Murray,

Thank you for being patient whilst I gathered the information that you requested in your initial letter.

In response to your questions I can report as follows:

  1. A spokesperson who had full authority and who was acting on behalf of the Trustees of the Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) made the statement to the Lancashire Telegraph
  2. When the matter was reported it was not general practice to report such matters to the police and in fact the victim in this case did not want the matter referring to the police; this wish was honoured. However today safeguarding is well established within the church and the Marist Fathers follow a suite of well-developed safeguarding procedures which have been established by the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service (CSAS) in conjunction with the Bishop Conference of England and Wales. CSAS procedures can be found on

If a similar incident was reported now the matter would be reported to the police for them to investigate in coordination with the local authority designated officer (lado).

  1. Fr O’Neill was sent to St Luke’s Institute Maryland, USA.
  2. However when the issues were raised the victim in the matter did not want the incidents concerning him to be known, his parents were still alive and he did not want them to be aware of what had happened to him therefore his wishes were respected. However as soon as the issues were raised by the victim, Fr O’Neill was removed from the school to minimise risk to others. Again if the matter had happened today CSAS policies would be deployed and the aggressor would be removed from his post immediately and the fact reported to statutory services.
  3. Respecting the wishes of the victim the college was informed that Fr O’Neill’s removal from the school was stress related.
  4. The victim’s wishes were adhered to and therefore few people at the time were made aware of the facts.

I do hope that the questions posed have been answered to your satisfaction and that you are reassured that the safeguarding protocols and procedures are completely different from where they were when the matter was initially reported.

There is no place for any form of abuse within the catholic church and I can reassure you that we work hand in hand with local statutory services and report all matters of abuse to them that come to our attention.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me or if you would like to meet with me and/or a member of the Marist Fathers please do not hesitate to ask and one will be arranged.

Yours sincerely


Safeguarding Coordinator, Middlesbrough Diocese




Reply to Safeguarding Coordinator 5 December 2017:

Dear [Safeguarding Coordinator]

Questions re abuse by the late Father Kevin O’Neill SM

Thank you for your letter of 23 November in reply to my original letter of 21 October 2017. You will also recall that we spoke by telephone twice on 28 November when you gave me further background to the Marist response to my questions and I raised additional concerns about the questionable classroom behaviour of Fr Michael Simison SM when he taught me at St Mary’s College Blackburn in the 1970s. I also sent you emails on 29 and 30 November (enclosed) setting out further misgivings I now have about Marist governance and openness in relation to abuse cases, and in particular about the close relationships among specific individuals in the Marist priesthood and hierarchy.

I will communicate about the Simison case in a separate correspondence. In this letter I would like to follow up the issues arising from the O’Neill case that beg several safeguarding concerns in relation to my original questions as well as more generally.

My original questions

  1. Was this statement in fact made to the LT by the Society of Mary, and if so by which of its officers?

You state that ‘a spokesperson with full authority’ made the statement, but do not say who that person was. Given my concerns about the relationships among individual Marists, I believe that that person’s identity is germane to the independence, objectivity or otherwise of the Marist response.

  1. If the abuse was admitted, why was the matter not referred to the police by the Society?

You state that it was not the Marist’s ‘general practice’ to report abuse amongst them to the police. This is shocking, but hardly surprising give the kind of behaviours that do appear to have been general practice among Marists in relation to vulnerable children in the UK and abroad for many decades. My recent reading on the subject reveals a widespread and deep culture of abuse, denial, cover-up and victim-blaming. You are doubtless aware of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse which found that over many years more than 20% of the Marist Brothers were perpetrators of abuse.

In response to this and other questions you also state that the wishes of the victim were followed in not reporting O’Neill to the police and in not informing the school or the wider public of his abuse. Again, this appears to be a conveniently self-serving response by the Marists to a terrible case that would have been highly damaging to them. Firstly, the victim was first and foremost a teenage boy, not the adult who subsequently plucked up the courage to reveal what had happened to him when he was younger. It is to that teenage boy and to others who may have been at risk or abused that the Marists had primary responsibility. Secondly, it must surely have been possible for O’Neill to have been dealt with by the law and others warned without the identity of that particular victim ever being revealed.

Whatever the current procedures may officially be, it seems to me that there are probably any number of historical cases yet to come to light despite this kind of cover-up, and, given the small, close-knit group of priests that makes up the Marist Fathers, I have little confidence that their governance procedures could be sufficiently robust to ensure that this kind of thing no longer goes on.

  1. To which therapy provider in the United States was Father O’Neill sent?

You state that O’Neill was sent to St Luke’s Institute Maryland, USA. Even a cursory look into the background, ‘therapeutic’ practices, criminality and court cases relating to this Institute reveals a place where the lunatics do indeed appear to have taken over the asylum. I can only guess what conceivably therapeutic experience anyone referred there might have had inflicted upon them or what positive benefits could accrue to abusers and their victims as a result. I sincerely hope that the collection moneys of the faithful are no longer being channelled to such a place.

  1. Why was the matter not more widely reported at the time so that other pupils who had been at risk (such as me) were made aware and could have come forward with their stories, whether abuse had occurred or not?

See 2 above.

  1. How could the college possibly have been unaware of the true circumstances of Father O’Neill’s departure, given for example that, a) his place a headmaster was taken by his friend and close working colleague Michael Finley, and b) his close friend and long-time colleague Father Noel Wynn is to this day a governor of the school, had worked for many years at the school when I was there, had been head of the Marist college in Middlesbrough and is presumably a very senior UK Marist? (NB: By this I do not imply any knowledge or collusion by these individuals in any abuse by O’Neill, simply that I find it difficult to believe they would not have been made aware of the circumstances of his departure.)

See 2 above

  1. If the college was indeed unaware of the circumstances of O’Neill’s departure, why did the Society keep this from them?

See 2 above.

Telephone conversation 28 November and subsequent emails

You explained to me when we spoke by phone that you had derived your response from a conversation and document review with a Fr Peter Corcoran. I understand that he is or was Regional Superior of the Marist Fathers, although I do not know what that role entails. You told me that when asked about Fr Wynn’s role (Question 5 above) Fr Corcoran told you that Fr Wynn was simply an ‘elderly priest’, having no significant management or administrative role in the Marist Fathers. This seemed surprising to me given he was the Head of one of only three Marist Colleges in the country and a long-time governor of St Mary’s College Blackburn (and I believe other schools). It was even more surprising given that it appears Fr Corcoran took over as Regional Superior from Fr Wynn himself (see my email of 29 November enclosed).

In the light of this I must ask you as Safeguarding Officer whether you still believe that the responses given to my questions by Fr Corcoran were both truthful and complete? If not, what would be the revised answer to my original question, and what, if any, consequences would fall upon Fr Corcoran?

I also enclose with my email of 30 November the photograph featuring Frs Corcoran, Wynn and Simison together at Walsingham and will again pose the same questions I included in that email. As a professionally independent officer yourself, are you content that the evidence you have before you is complete and reliable, that Marist governance is robust, and that concerns raised (current or historical) are dealt with properly given the close personal relationships amongst those concerned?

General conclusions and next steps

You will have gathered that I am very disturbed by the behaviour of Fr O’Neill, at least one other Marist priest and of the Marist order generally. In terms of next steps:

  • I would appreciate a response to the remaining specific concerns in relation to the O’Neill case that I have raised in this letter.
  • I will follow up on the other case in separate correspondence.
  • Given the issues arising, both in the UK and abroad, I believe it to be inappropriate for the Marist Fathers to have any access to school children by direct provision of education, or any other means for that matter. Could you therefore please tell me whether Marist schools still exist? If so, I will escalate my concerns to the Department for Education.

Yours sincerely

Damian Murray



Reply by Middlesbrough Diocese Safeguarding Officer 18 February 2018:

Dear Mr Murray

I am writing with reference to your letter of 5th December 2017 and more recent communications of 15th and 16th January 2018. This letter deals specifically with your questions relating to the late Father Kevin O’Neill.

Firstly I would like to stress that the Catholic Church takes all matters of safeguarding very seriously and that your concerns are not being treated as any less urgent or serious – an implication made in your email of the 15th January 2018.

I have considered very carefully how best to respond to your communications and have not addressed the specifics of every question, or indeed every observation raised, as some of these points, particularly those around the global order of the Marists are beyond the scope of my role. As such, my duty as Safeguarding Coordinator is to safeguard young and vulnerable people within the Diocese of Middlesbrough and to report any concerns to the relevant authorities.

As outlined in our previous correspondence, when the matter was first raised it was not a formal requirement to report abuse to the police and in fact the victim in this case indicated they did not want the matter to be referred. Today safeguarding procedures are well established within the Catholic Church and when accusations of abuse are made, it is our policy to always inform the statutory authorities. With regards to the case of the late Kevin O’Neill, as soon as the case was brought to my attention in 2014, I reported this to the Lancashire Constabulary (the assigned Case Number is LC-2014-0513-0469).

With reference to your misgivings about Marist Governance and their openness in relation to abuse cases, the Marist Order has aligned itself to the Diocese of Middlesbrough and therefore all safeguarding matters are handled by the diocese. In 2007 Baroness Cumberlege published a report titled “Safeguarding with Confidence” which looked at the Catholic Church’s safeguarding procedures and effectiveness. The recommendations set out in this report continue to act as a bedrock for continual improvement and I am actively involved with the implementation of the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service (CSAS) guidance which took its lead from the Cumberlege report. Although I am not personally able to oversee all processes and procedures undertaken by the Marists, as the Safeguarding Coordinator for the Diocese of Middlesbrough, I am responsible for handling any safeguarding matters relating to that order. Except in the case of dealing with safeguarding matters that are brought to my attention I operate at arm’s length from the Marists and would scrutinise that Order just as closely as any other.

As regards your concerns about the Marist Fathers having a role in the direct provision of education to children, as I understand it, none of the Marist Fathers within this order are involved in the teaching of youngsters or have any unsupervised day to day contact with children.

I acknowledge, as have successive Popes through public announcements, that the Church has made many mistakes regarding child abuse in the past and we all hope and pray that the systems and procedures we now have, and continue to put in place, like CSAS, will help eradicate this.

I recognise that I have not responded to the specifics of your recent communications but I hope that my explanation above will reassure you that we continue to be vigilant and that we take the matter of looking after children, young people and the vulnerable very seriously.

Should you wish to pursue your lines of enquiry further, I would request that you contact the Police. More detail in the church’s procedures are also available on the CSAS website at

Yours sincerely

Middlesbrough Diocese Safeguarding Coordinator



Reply to Safeguarding Coordinator 20 February

Dear [Safeguarding Coordinator]

Marist governance and behaviour in relation to abuse by the late Kevin O’Neill SM

I received your response to my letter of 5 December 2017 this morning. I note that after ten weeks of deliberation you have answered very few of my questions and have not allayed any of my concerns about the past or current governance of the Marists. Instead you have summarised your job description and relayed some empty pious reassurances about how seriously the church takes this sort of thing, presumably after the response was screened by the clergy. I do note that you at least did the right thing in notifying O’Neill’s abuse to the police in 2014, which I appreciate. The craven behaviour and abdication of moral responsibility by the Marists in this case remains to my mind inexcusable.

As I stated in my last email, it is my firm belief that the Marists are not a fit and proper body to have the oversight of any child’s education, though I know that they retain the Trusteeship and/or governorship of several UK schools to this day. The evidence of my own experience, as well as from around the world, eg in Australia and lately Chile, is conclusive to me that abusive behaviour has been endemic in this order for decades and that priests who perpetrated or knew about it within the Marists continue to retain positions of responsibility, whilst Marist activities receive funding from taxpayer and/or charitable sources. I will therefore continue to pursue my concerns with the appropriate regulatory bodies.

I do not intend to communicate with you again about the O’Neill case. […]

Your sincerely

Damian Murray



Letter to Safeguarding Coordinator following meeting on 31 August 2018 (3 September 2018)


Dear [Safeguarding Coordinator]

Marist Fathers’ management of the case of the late Father Kevin O’Neill

Thanks again to you and to Dianne Swiers and Martin McAnaney for meeting with me and my friend […] in London on Friday 31 August. I felt our conversation to be frank, respectful, worthwhile and in good faith. It did nonetheless leave many of my questions and concerns unanswered and unresolved.

We agreed, I think, that O’Neill’s grooming behaviour and his sexual activity with at least one pupil whilst he was headteacher of St Mary’s College Blackburn in the 1970s/80s was, for obvious reasons, wrong. Whilst grooming was not classified as a crime in that period, the sexual activity certainly was, and both activities would, at the time they were committed and when they were reported by the victim in 1993, normally have been classified as gross misconduct leading to immediate dismissal and the criminal activity should have been reported to the police by O’Neill’s superiors in the Marist Fathers.

We know however that the Marists took no such action. O’Neill was ‘retired’ in 1993 on grounds of ‘stress’ and was sent to St Luke’s Institute in Maryland USA for some sort of therapy. We know also that the School does not appear to have been informed by the Marists of the reason O’Neill was removed and continued to be kept in the dark about it when they named an arts block after him in 2008. This, even though the Marists appoint the great majority of College trustees and one Marist priest, charity trustee, former UK Marist Superior and friend and colleague of O’Neill, Father Noel Wynn, was and is a College governor.

O’Neill died in 2011. You, as incoming Safeguarding Officer, reported his historical abuse to the police in 2014. And yet, at the College’s 90th anniversary celebrations in 2015 a Marist priest, Alois Greiler, was still able to make an address to the College that referred to O’Neill has having merely retired, quoting at length a speech O’Neill himself made in 1975. It was only when O’Neill’s sexual victim Graham Caveney published his book in 2017 that these facts came to public light, the arts block was renamed and I felt able to report my own grooming at the hands of O’Neill in the 1970s.

These facts are, I believe, beyond dispute. The question for me remains: who in the Marist Fathers is responsible and should be made accountable for the failures to meet basic governance standards, including those known today as the Nolan Principles of public life?

It seems to me that the current safeguarding systems are probably fit for purpose, and they are not what I am challenging. I also take Father McAnaney’s expressions of regret on behalf of the Marists to be sincere.

My starting point is that whoever in the Marists was aware of O’Neill’s behaviour and failed to hold him to account for gross misconduct or to report his criminal activity to the police were themselves guilty of gross misconduct and should have been subjected to regulatory and disciplinary sanctions by the Marists themselves, by the Charity Commission as regulators of the Marist charity and by the Secretary of State for Education as Principal Regulator of St Mary’s College.

This should apply, in my opinion, to everyone in the chain of responsibility and communication up until 2014 in relation to the failure to report to the police or the Charity Commission, and up until 2017 in relation to the failure to inform the college of a serious untoward incident that still had the potential to cause them serious reputational damage and jeopardise their viability as a provider of education to young people in and around Blackburn.

It is evident to me that the Marist Fathers’ charity in the UK bears full corporate responsibility for the chain of events from 1993 onwards, and arguably for O’Neill’s ability unsupervised to abuse pupils freely in the 1970s and 80s. This is why I believe the charity should be removed from all trustee and governor posts they currently hold in relation to schools in the UK.

At our meeting we also discussed the spectrum of scenarios as to who individually had knowledge and responsibility for these governance failures between 1993 and 2017. At one end of the spectrum Dianne suggested the possibility of secrecy and concealment by a single individual who was O’Neill’s line manager at the time the abuse was reported, with the information lying undisturbed and unread until the Marists were asked to review their records leading to your report the police in 2014. At the other end of the spectrum might be a conspiracy of silence by all trustees and administrators of the Marist charity, the entire sequence of UK Marist superiors during that period and any number of O’Neill’s other Marist friends and colleagues.

In my opinion the balance of probabilities lies somewhere in between these two ends of the spectrum. It seems to me to be vanishingly unlikely that one Marist superior was able single-handedly to receive Mr Caveney’s information and to process O’Neill’s ‘retirement’ and transfer to the USA without the assistance and knowledge of others and without some documentary trail in relation to HR procedures and financial arrangements.

What seems never to have happened, despite Mr Caveney’s revelations from 1993 and my own correspondence with you beginning in October 2017, is any systematic attempt by the Marist hierarchy or the Diocese of Middlesbrough to carry out, by document reviews and interviews with key individuals, an investigation, audit or root-cause analysis to establish who exactly was responsible for what and when. Again, this seems to me to fall well short of the governance standards that would be expected by the Charity Commission, the Department for Education or indeed the general public. I would still expect such an investigation to be carried out to identify the individuals responsible for these lapses in governance over very many years. Please let me know if there are any plans now to do this.

Before I conclude, there are two related issues that were touched on in our meeting that I would place on record here, and an additional point in relation to the Marists’ charitable status.

  • Father McAnaney suggested that the only senior Marist who would have known the precise reasons for and circumstances of O’Neill’s removal was the UK Marist Superior in 1993, a Father Austin Horsley, now deceased. I note that Father Horsley died as recently as April 2018. I obviously do not know his circumstances but, had he his faculties, it seems to me that he could easily have answered many of the concerns and questions I set out in my previous correspondence, including those that remained unanswered in your letter to me of 19 February 2018. We do know that there was definitely a wider awareness of O’Neill’s true behaviour among the Marist hierarchy by 2014. If Father Horsley was not brought to account by then at the latest, why not?
  • Father McAnaney also said that the College had been advised not to name the arts block after O’Neill in 2008, though they were not given any reason why and went ahead anyway. It seems to me important to me therefore to understand who gave this advice to the College, on what basis and when was Father McAnaney made aware that that advice had been given.
  • I note that in July this year the Marists converted their charity (no. 235412) to a charitable incorporated organisation (CIO) no. 1179085. One of the purposes of such a change is usually to limit the financial liability of individual trustees for debts incurred by the charity as a corporate body. I am slightly surprised that the Charity Commission sanctioned this whilst there is an outstanding serious complaint against the Marists. Nonetheless, I understand that limited liability in this context is no protection against the consequences to an individual of any personal negligence or criminality. I will pursue this question with the Charity Commission but note it here for completeness.


I have summarised above the facts as I understand them and there are number of outstanding questions requiring answers or clarification. As I explained at our meeting, I am also pursuing my concerns with the Charity Commission and the Department for Education, and I would expect that they too would be looking for the same accountability and responsibility from the Marists in the UK that I am.

If I have misunderstood or omitted anything important in this summary, please do not hesitate to contact me by email or by telephone. This letter is also for the attention of Dianne and Martin, so please pass copies to them.

Yours sincerely

Damian Murray





Appendix 2

Correspondence with Secretary of Marist Fathers, England

First letter from Secretary of Society of Mary (Marist Fathers, England) 7 December 2018:

(Note, paragraph numbering added to aid reference to my subsequent reply.)

Dear Mr Murray

Response from the Society of Mary (Marist Fathers)

1              I am writing to you in my role as charity secretarial/finance manager for the Society of Mary (Marist Fathers).

2              The trustees have asked me to respond on their behalf to correspondence received by […], Diocese of Middlesbrough Safeguarding Co-ordinator and passed onto us, in which you raised questions and assertions in connection with historic governance matters in 1993 and later, concerning the disclosure of historic sexual abuse at St. Mary’s College, Blackburn.

3              Fr Peter Corcoran (Trustee and Safeguarding Representative for Marist Fathers) and Fr Austin Horsley (Trustee – deceased) provided the responses to your original letters dated 21 October and 5th December, which [the Safeguarding Coordinator] relayed to you in his letters of 23rd November [2017] and 19th February 2018.

4              Subsequently, you and a friend agreed to attend a meeting with two members from the Middlesbrough Diocesan Safeguarding Commission team and Fr. Martin McAnaney, the European Provincial Superior for the Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) on Friday 31 August, to speak openly about your experiences and concerns.

5              I refer to your recent letter of 3rd September in which you acknowledged the conversation at the meeting was frank, respectful, worthwhile and in good faith but still left some matters unanswered and unresolved. In your letter, you summarised the facts, as you understood them to be. With respect, I would like to revisit those facts and assumptions and clarify the position.

6              When the victim first reported the allegation of sexual abuse in March 1993, he was an adult of 29 years. The victim had reported the allegation to his local priest who advised him to write a letter to the Society. The local priest then forwarded the letter to the Provincial Superior of the Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) in England who was Fr. Austin Horsley.

7              On receipt of the letter, the Provincial Superior arrange a meeting with the accused who admitted the allegation was true. The Provincial Superior also met with the victim who was resolute that the police should not be informed, nor any authorities – he did not want the matter publicised, for fear of his parents finding out, as he did not want to cause them any distress. The victim had one stipulation, that the accused be removed from his post as principal of St. Mary’s College.

8              The Provincial Superior immediately sought advice from the Superior General and the Local Vicar General, who stated that diocesan policy was “immediate suspension pending investigation”. The immediate suspension was shown as a leave of absence on medical grounds. Canon Law was adhered to and professional advice sought. Fr O’Neill did not return to St. Mary’s College after the Easter break in 1993, he took leave of absence from the College on medical grounds. He resigned his position as principal on 16th May 1993. During April and May 1993, he underwent psychological analysis at the Dympna Centre in London before going to St. Luke’s Institute, a therapy centre in Maryland USA.

9              Nowadays, as part of safeguarding procedures of the Society, the police would automatically be informed if anyone came forward with an allegation of this nature and an investigation would subsequently follow.

10           In 1993, the Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) was an independently run English Province, a Religious Congregation directly accountable to the Superior General in Rome. Within the hierarchy of the Society, the position of Provincial Superior assumed the senior leadership role and held responsibility for engaging with professional advisers. The position of Provincial Bursar had oversight of the finances and liaised with the accountants/auditors. Local Superiors have responsibility for their communities and the works, which the members are engaged in.

11           The Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) has charitable status in the legal form of an unincorporated charitable trust with a Trust Deed as its constitution. The members of the Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) are Fathers of a Religious Congregation; they are not employees of the Society/Charitable Trust. When they enter the Congregation, they pledge their life to the Society.

12           St. Mary’s College in Blackburn was initially a school founded by the Society in 1925. The Society owns the land and most of the school buildings and the Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) are the legal trustees of the property. The foundation governors at the College are accountable to the Society’s trustees for the conduct of the College. Marist Fathers trustees appoint the foundation governors in accordance with the Instrument & Articles of Government, a legal document, which requires the consent of the Governing Body, the Trustees and the Bishop to any amendments thereof. The College’s own selection board recommends potential foundation governors to the trustees for appointment. Foundation governors usually represent up to 60% of the governing body. Only one Marist Father serves on the governing body of the College out of 20 governors.

13           In 2008, the principal of St. Mary’s College contacted the Society and informed them that he intended to name the new Performing Arts Block after Fr. O’Neill. The Delegation Superior asked him not to do this, but the principal went ahead, believing the request to be based on humility.

14           In May 2014, the victim’s solicitors contacted the Society with a claim for damages in connection with sexual abuse. In doing so, previous confidentiality was discharged, and on receipt of the claim for compensation, Fr. Horsley (then Regional Bursar/Trustee) immediately passed the victim’s claim onto the Society’s solicitors and insurers. Fr. Corcoran, (Safeguarding Representative/Trustee) informed the Diocesan Safeguarding Coordinator […], who informed the safeguarding officer for the Diocese of Salford (Blackburn Area) and the police. The police allocated a reference number for the case but since Fr. O’Neill had died in 2011, the police stated that the likely outcome would be for the information to remain on file with no further action taken unless other victims came forward. To date, no further victims have come forward.

15           In late October 2014, the victim’s solicitors requested a list of records from St. Mary’s College (as Fr. O’Neill’s employer), which dated back to 1993 prior to 6th form college status. This information was only available via the College’s archives. Fr. Corcoran met with the principal of St. Mary’s College and the Chair of the Governing Body in November 2014, where he explained the allegation and the victim’s claim for compensation. Later that morning he met with the College Chaplain/Head of Safeguarding to inform her of the situation.

16           The Chair of the Governing Body was in disbelief as he had previously known Fr. O’Neill and thought highly of him. When Fr. Corcoran left the meeting, he believed the information would be shared with the Governing Body at their next meeting. The Chair subsequently resigned from his role as Chair two months later and the principal resigned shortly afterwards due to ill health*. The archives were unhelpful in providing the information requested by the victim’s solicitors, as no reliance could be placed on the sparse information available due to ongoing restructuring. The College had become part of the Further Education sector in 1993/94 and then a corporate body in 2001.

17           When the press released a preview of the victim’s book in August 2017, the trustees were informed that their earlier disclosure in 2014 to College personnel had not been communicated to the remainder of the governing body/fellow governors.

18           As well as notifying St. Mary’s College of the victim’s claim, the trustees also raised a serious incident report with the Charity Commission on 10th November 2014, signed by Fr. Horsley, which the Commission acknowledge two days later on 12th November 2014.

19           I note that you are not challenging the current safeguarding systems in place at the Charity, which I can assure you are fit for purpose as well as the Charity’s current governance procedures and practices.

20           I also note your acceptance of Fr. McAnaney’s expression of regret, which you took to be sincere and of our offer of counselling support if you think this would be helpful.

21           May I say that those who served as Marist Fathers in the roles of Provincial Superior, Provincial Bursar and as Trustees at the time of the allegation of sexual abuse are all no longer with us.

22           You mentioned the question of accountability and failure of governance standards for the actions, taken in good faith by the Provincial Superior in connection with the victim, who wished to protect his privacy, which goes back to 1993, some 25 years ago.

23           What I can say is that the Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) is not a corporate entity; it will become one in 2019 when the Charitable Incorporated Organisation (“CIO”) becomes operational. Individual Marist Fathers are not employees of the Charity they are members of it. Employee disciplinary measures do not apply to members, as the employer/employee relationship is not present. Canon Law applies to members of religious congregations.

24           As a religious charitable trust, the Society does not have the functional divisions of a corporate entity such as HR, IT, property, finance and legal departments. It took until the late 1990’s for the Society to employ its first external part-time bookkeeper. The Society commissions its services from its professional advisers.

25           The governance standards, to which you refer, were not in existence in 1993. The first voluntary code of governance “Good Governance Code” came into existence in 2005 for not-for-profit entities. Now renamed as The Charity Governance Code (2017) it is a practical tool to help charities and their trustees develop a high standard of governance and compliance with law and relevant regulations. It is recommended best practice, but not mandatory.

26           Finally, in connection with the related issues you refer to in your letter, I can confirm that the trustee board spoke with Fr. Horsley, concerning the issues in your letter. At the time he was 81 years old, in retirement, in ill health and incapacitated. He assisted with answering your questions and reviewed the initial responses to your queries, which our Marist Safeguarding Representative passed on to […], the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer.

27           Fr. Horsley’s high-ranking position in 1993 allowed his actions to remain unquestioned and for secrecy and concealment of the allegation of sexual abuse. For example, one of our current trustees recalls Fr. O’Neill going to the USA “on sabbatical” in the 1990’s and thinking “what a great idea” at the time.

28           I can confirm that Fr. McAnaney only became aware of the advice given to the College in 2018 when he was asked to review your letters and the responses provided. Until recently, Fr. McAnaney was a member of the Irish Province and not associated with English Province matters.

29           Fr. McAnaney acknowledged receipt of your letter when passed a copy by [the Diocesan Safeguarding Coordinator]. At the time, he conveyed his thanks and hoped the meeting in London had helped achieve some sort of closure for you.

30           There is nothing more that I can add or that can be done. I have reviewed the very limited information available from the time, which was based on disclosure of the sexual abuse and the subsequent actions surrounding the victim’s claim for compensation. Concealment of the facts was seen as a way of maintaining the victim’s confidentiality. Fr. O’Neill did not take others into his confidence. We know that other Marist Fathers were led to believe his withdrawal from public life was due to health matters. A short time after his return to the UK, Fr. O’Neill was diagnosed with the onset of Alzheimer’s; he later went into nursing care where he passed in 2011.

31           With respect, the contents of this letter are strictly private, confidential and personal to its recipients and should not be disclosed or passed to any third party without first seeking prior consent from the Trustees.

Yours sincerely

Charity Secretarial/Finance Manager

For and on behalf of the Trustees of the Society of Mary (Marist Fathers)

  1. Fr Martin McAnaney [European Provincial Superior]
    The Charity Commission
    Diocese of Middlesbrough Safeguarding Coordinator

[* Whist fact-checking this case study, I found from contemporary newspaper articles that the Principal did not retire until February 2017 and that the Chaplain/Safeguarding Officer was still at SMC in 2016 – hardly ‘shortly after’ Corcoran disclosed the abuse to them in 2014. The Marists seem genuinely unable to speak even one simple truth about the O’Neill case.]

Response to 7 December letter from Marist Secretary, 20 December 2018

Dear [Marist Secretary]

Marist cover-up of sexual abuse by Headteacher Kevin O’Neill

In response to your letter to me dated 7 December 2018 I attach a list of comments and questions arising from it. For reference I numbered the paragraphs in your letter 1 to 31. I have also emailed this letter and the attachment to Middlesbrough Diocese Safeguarding Officer, […], and to […], Monitoring and Enforcement Officer at the Charity Commission.

My comments and questions should be self-explanatory, but if you require clarification or have further questions of your own, please to not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Damian Murray

(Paragraphs numbered 1-31 for reference)

1.0          No comment.

2.0          My current concerns do stem from historical governance failures by the Marist Fathers and from the revelations of sexual abuse by the Marist former headteacher of St Mary’s College, Kevin O’Neill which only came to public knowledge in 2017. They also stem from my own grooming at the hands of O’Neill in the 1970s as well as my being molested in class in the same period by another Marist priest still active in the Marist Fathers. The only reason we are addressing this at such a distance in time is the persistent, intentional cover-up of O’Neill’s abuse by the Marist Fathers.

2.1          Although O’Neill and his superior Austin Horsley, who covered up the abuse, are both dead, there remain senior Marists who are or who were trustees and who in my opinion were, on the balance of probabilities, complicit in the cover-up and part of a wider Marist culture whereby priests freely abused pupils without supervision or appropriate disciplinary action when discovered. This is the basis of my contention that the Marist are to this day not fit and proper as individuals or as an entity to hold trustee or governor positions in any English school.

3.0          I am amazed that Austin Horsley, the man who for decades concealed O’Neill’s abuse, was still in a position of authority in 2017/18 and allowed to draft and/or vet any response to my concerns. By this time his own superiors must have been well aware of his role and he should have been removed from any governance relationship with the charity and any other church or school with which the Marists are associated. His conflict of interest was so obvious that I should not have to draw attention to it. At no time until my meeting with Father McAnaney on 31 August was Austin Horsley’s role in the cover-up, let alone in the Marists’ response to me, disclosed, by which time he had died.

4.0          Correct.

5.0          No comment.

6.0          The age of the victim when he reported O’Neill’s abuse against him is not relevant to my concerns. My point is that he, like most of the young people under the Trustee and governorships of the Marists to the present day, was a teenager at the time of the abuse. It is to that teenager and those since and currently in these schools that the Marists in my view owed the duty to disclose the abuse, report O’Neill to the police and to discipline any other priest complicit in the abuse and/or any cover-up.

6.1          The duty of care to the victim as an adult once he reported the abuse was to my mind a separate matter to be negotiated between the Marists, the victim, the police and the courts. The Marists’ compliance with the victims wishes in this case was to me evidently self-serving and designed to avoid scandal, further disclosures by other potential victims and any possible financial, legal or even criminal consequences.

7.0          I empathise entirely with the victim’s desire to shield his devoutly catholic parents from the knowledge that their child had been sexually abused by a priest whom they and many others (including me) knew and trusted. This emotional dynamic has been and is used many times and in many circumstances by abusive clergy in churches and schools the world over. It is horribly ironic that this enabler of abuse is being made to serve as a kindness by the Marists and at the ‘stipulation’ of the victim. This is just another variation on classic victim-blaming.

8.0          What, in this context, are the actual names of the Provincial Superior, Superior General and the Local Vicar General? Throughout my correspondence with the Marists there has been a marked reluctance to ‘name names’, again illustrative of a pervasive culture of secrecy, cover-up and reluctance to accept ordinary levels of adult responsibility. It is clear that even in 1993 at least four Catholic priests, including the victim’s local priest, knew of the abuse and were in a position to report it to the police and to the Charity Commission but did not.

8.1          ‘Leave of absence on medical grounds’ was a conscious lie and deception on the part of the Marist hierarchy.

8.2          Canon Law may well have been adhered to, but it has no status in English law, civil, criminal, employment or otherwise. From whom was ‘professional advice’ sought? The number of people complicit in the cover-up and their professional status grows wider. (For information, I am aware that it is not currently a criminal offence to fail to report a crime, indeed, for all I know, Canon Law may encourage or condone this kind of dereliction of civic and moral duty.)

8.3          The issues of ‘psychological therapy’ for homosexuality and/or paedophilia, let alone the dubious history and practices of St Luke’s Institute are far too complex to address here. Suffice to say this was hardly likely to be an appropriate use of charitable funds.

9.0          Not relevant to the concerns arising from the O’Neill case and the responsibilities and actions or otherwise of former and serving Marist Trustees and priests.

10.0        I do not understand the substance or relevance of this paragraph.

11.0        I was aware of this.

12.0        I was aware of the Marists’ place in St Mary’s College’s governance structure. I put the ownership of the buildings to father McAnaney who told me the Marists owned only the land, presumably with the St Mary’s College further education exempt charity owning the buildings. I believe this to be an important issue, because currently material asset values are missing from either or both St Mary’s’ and the Marists’ annual financial statements.

12.1        If and when the Marists dispose of the school to successor trustees there is also a risk that they will be compensated in cash for the value of the buildings whilst offloading the debt arising from the acquisition of those buildings onto the successor, likely to be another publicly funded body.

12.2        The Marist priest who is governor of St Mary’s College is Noel Wynn, long-time colleague, co-resident and close friend of Kevin O’Neill. As I have said before, I have no reason to believe he was aware of O’Neill’s abuse whilst it was ongoing, but I believe it vanishingly unlikely that he was not aware of the eventual disclosure by the victim, the circumstances of O’Neill’s removal and of the subsequent cover-up. He was perfectly placed to brief school management, even confidentially, about the abuse and to warn them against naming the arts block after O’Neill, but did not do so.

13.0        Who was the Delegation Superior? What was his relation to the individuals listed by their designations only in paragraph 8?

13.1        If the college Principal believed the advice not to name the arts block in 2008 to be based on humility, rather than at minimum a severe reputational risk to the school, he should have been corrected by the Marists. Noel Wynn was ideally placed to do this, and as governor and trustee had a clear duty of trust and care to do so.

14.0        The bringing of a claim for compensation by O’Neill’s victim in 2014 is new information to me, but comes of no surprise and is of no particular relevance to my concerns. More seriously, it seems that only once O’Neill was dead and there was a potential financial consequence to the Marists did they notify this serious sexual abuse by a headteacher against a pupil to their designated Safeguarding Officer, […], who correctly referred the matter to the police. Even then, Austin Horsley was not disciplined or removed from his post.

14.1        To say that no further victims have come forward rather ignores my own circumstances. I was subjected to grooming behaviour by O’Neill when I was a teenager and vulnerable to his attentions. I am aware that grooming was not itself in the 1970s a criminal offence, but I would hazard a guess that neither was a priest taking a 15-year-old pupil to the pictures to see a film featuring the violent sodomy of a man permitted under Canon Law even then. This is not to mention the molestation to which I and other pupils at St Mary’s College were subjected by another Marist teacher and priest still active in the order.

14.2        It also seems clear to me that the Marists’ secrecy in this matter was all along designed actively to minimise the possibility of other victims finding out and being emboldened to come forward (as in my case), as well as to avoid any other possible compensation claims and financial penalties as a result of O’Neill or any other Marist’s abusive behaviour.

15.0        So in October 2014 the Principal, Chair of governors and the college chaplain/ Head of Safeguarding were all informed by trustee Peter Corcoran of O’Neill’s abuse. Assuming that governor and trustee Noel Wynn was also aware, this means that four senior leaders at the college then knew of the abuse. Yet the arts block celebrated O’Neill’s name for a further three years or so until 2017 when the victim’s book was published. At what point had Peter Corcoran been informed of the abuse and by whom?

16.0        When did trustee Peter Corcoran realise that the information had not been shared with the governors? It must have been well before 2017. Once he realised, he surely had a responsibility to inform the Principal and chair’s successors and, if necessary, to inform the full governing body himself. The dereliction of responsibility by the school’s then Chair and Principal here is breath-taking.

17.0        Who informed the trustees in 2017 that the 2014 disclosure had not been communicated to college governors? (See 16.0 above.)

18.0        I will take up with Charity Commission what action they took on the receipt of the serious incident notification in November 2014. Again, I note that Austin Horsley, a key architect of the concealment of O’Neill’s abuse, remained in a position of authority within the charity even whilst acknowledging over 20 years of cover-up. It appears nevertheless that the Charity Commission took no regularity action on this occasion.

19.0        No further comment.

20.0        I of course have no reason to doubt Martin McAnaney’s regrets; he has had to my knowledge had no direct involvement in the English Marists’ activities until recently. As European Superior I would expect him to take disciplinary action against all those Marists who have colluded in the O’Neill cover-up, but that is not my focus here. I have discussed the counselling offer with [the Safeguarding Coordinator]and whilst I appreciate the offer that he made in good faith, even were I in need of support, I would struggle to trust any service coming under the auspices of the Marists or the Catholic church more generally, for obvious reasons.

21.0       Given that it has taken 25 years for O’Neill’s abuse to come to light due to the deliberate cover-up by the Marists, it is hardly surprising that some individuals involved are ‘no longer with us’. Some however still are, eg Peter Corcoran and Noel Wynn, who are or have been trustees during that period.

22.0       No further comment.

23.0        I am aware that a simple charity does not have a corporate legal identity. The individual trustees nevertheless remain liable for their own actions and have duties of trust and care and are subject to all other applicable English law, civil, criminal or otherwise. Whilst a CIO will have legal personality and give some limitation to individual liability, this does not mean that individual trustees then gain immunity from appropriate legal action in relation to any negligence or any other unlawful activity on their part.

23.1        The absence of any employer/employee relationship, including an appropriate supervisory and disciplinary structure, in relation to Marist priests’ duties and behaviours when they were teaching children is a far more serious issue. This is, in my view, a complete breach of trust in relation to the pupils and parents of St Mary’s College over many decades. This is the essential governance vacuum which enabled abuse by O’Neill and at least one other priest, allowed it to thrive and, once the abuse was discovered, allowed it to be concealed. The invocation of Canon Law here is again an irrelevance, it does not supersede, or in any way stand in for, the rights and duties enshrined in English law.

24.0        The lack of even a basic governance structure within the charity up until the late 1990s further underlines that the serious business of running several schools and the responsibility for the care and education of thousands of young people have been, and still are, entrusted by the Charity Commission and the Department for Education (DfE) to an amateurish, unqualified and, in my view, negligent group of unaccountable clerics who still decline to take any responsibility for their incompetent, self-serving decisions or the damage they have caused.

25.0        I am aware that the Nolan Principles for standards in public life were not formalised or promulgated until 1993 in response to many high-profile corporate governance failures. I am also aware of how these principles stand in relation to the Charity Commission’s own guidance to charities. I am more surprised that the Marists deem the principles in their own right, which have existed for many centuries, not to be ‘mandatory’. I am no student of Canon Law, but would be interested to know which of these principles (selflessness, integrity etc) Canon Law considers dispensable in relation to running a school or a charity.

26.0        See comment at 3.0 above.

27.0        Austin Horsley’s ‘high-ranking position’ is no excuse for the other adults around him, several of whom did know about O’Neill’s abuse from 1993 onwards, and who in several cases held their own positions of responsibility eg as headteachers, superiors, trustees and governors, to stand by and allow the cover-up to go unchallenged. The ‘only obeying orders’ defence has a terrible history, and had this been offered by an erring child at St Mary’s College over many decades in the past, it would likely have been met by a furious assault from a priest with a leather strap.

28.0        See comment at 20.0 above. (‘2008’ presumably a typo for 2018.)

29.0        I will have achieved resolution when the English Marists take responsibility and are held accountable for their actions and inactions in relation to O’Neill’s abuse and when, because they are not fit and proper persons, they are removed from any role in the governance of any school in the UK.

30.0        I did not expect the Marists to do anything, any more than they have done anything to date to take proper responsibility for their governance and ethical failures. This is why I expect the Charity Commission and the DfE to take appropriate regulatory action to ensure that the Marists are never again entrusted with the care or education of children in any capacity.

31.0        No comment.




Marist Secretary’s response to 20 December letter and comment, 3 January 2019

Dear Mr Murray

Society of Mary (Marist Fathers)

I refer to your letter dated 20th December 2018, which arrived in the office at New Year. I note your comments and questions arising from my letter of 7th December.

As I stated in my letter there is nothing more that I can add, there is very limited information available. Of the 19 remaining members of the Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) in England, 90% are over 65 years old and none has taught in the education sector since the late 1990’s.

All of the high-ranking individual Marist Fathers in the English Province (that was) in 1993 are now deceased.

St. Mary’s College along with other Colleges were formerly Catholic Voluntary Aided schools, which became part of the Further Education sector in 1993/94, with governing bodies responsible for the governance of the schools, subject to statute, and later they were constituted as corporate entities.

The Governing Body of St. Mary’s College occupies and conducts the College on behalf of the Trustees of the Society and under the supervision of the Bishop. The Governing Body is accountable to its Trustees for the occupation of the premises and the conduct of the College, and to the Bishop for the Catholic character of the College.

When in earlier years the College(s) employed Marist priests as teachers, they became employees and were subject to the employer/employee relationship and appropriate supervisory and disciplinary structures that were the responsibility of the of the governing body of the College.

I can only repeat that the Diocese of Middlesbrough Safeguarding team and the Charity Commission have confirmed they are satisfied with the safeguarding procedures the Society has in place.

Yours sincerely

Finance Manager/Charity Secretarial



Reply to Marist Secretary’s 3 January letter, 7 January 2019

Dear [Marist Secretary]

Marist cover-up of sexual abuse by Headteacher Kevin O’Neill

I received your letter dated 3 January 2019 today. Whilst some of the organisational detail you give is true in a fairly trivial sense, in other respects you appear to have entirely missed the point of my complaint and have overlooked some very obvious facts.

Of course many Marists in senior positions in 1993 are now deceased. My point is that between 1993 when O’Neill’s abuse was initially concealed by Austin Horsley and 2017, when it was made public by the victim, several other senior Marists, some of whom are alive and are or have been trustees of the Marist charity, continued with the concealment until the victim’s revelations made it untenable for them to continue in their deception.

Incidentally, since 1993 the Marists have been the recipients of hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations and legacies, much of which was doubtless given in good faith and on the basis that the Marists did not collude in the concealment of child sexual abuse. The protection of these income streams was doubtless a strong motivation for the decades-long cover-up.

You state that when Marists priests did teach in and run schools day to day that they “… became employees and were subject to the employer/employee relationship and appropriate supervisory and disciplinary structures that were the responsibility of the governing body of the college.” The case of Headteacher Kevin O’Neill’s sexual abuse, its cover-up by Austin Horsley and others then and subsequently and the concealment of the abuse from the governors, even when and to this day the Marists have a governor on the St Mary’s College governing body, demonstrates that, at best, this nominal governance and management structure was disregarded in 1993 and for decades since.

My assertion that safeguarding arrangements have been inadequate therefore still stands.

It is plain that we are not going to agree on the basic facts of this case. Neither have you nor the English Marists shown the slightest empathy or insight into the source of my concerns, let alone towards my own personal experiences at the hands of O’Neill and of the other Marist, still alive, who freely molested me and many other children when we were in the Marists’ care.

I would therefore ask that any further observations you have are not addressed to me directly but are passed only to your regulators either at the Charity Commission or the Department for Education. Should I decide to take matters any further with the Marists I will do so only through an appointed legal representative of whose details you will be notified should that need arise.


Yours sincerely

Damian Murray



Appendix 3

Correspondence with Department for Education

Letter to Secretary of State 28 February 2018

Dear Secretary of State for Education

Serious concerns about the Governance by the Marist Fathers of St Mary’s College Blackburn

In your role as Principal Regulator for St Mary’s College (SMC) Blackburn, I wish to lodge with you the following concerns and complaints against the Marist Fathers as Trustees and sponsors of the majority of governors for SMC.

  • Failure to prevent, detect or disclose historical abuse of pupils
  • Poor stewardship, financial management and accounting.


The Marist Fathers, as Society of Mary, are also a charity in their own right (Charity no. 235412) and I have accordingly lodged a parallel complaint with the Charity Commission. You will also doubtless be aware of the College’s current state of financial and governance failure which are subject to intervention by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and the Sixth Form College Commissioner (SFCC).

I have not referred my concerns directly to SMC. Because the governors and Trustees are the subject of my complaint, they have a clear conflict of interest and would not be able to address my concerns independently or objectively. This is why I am complaining directly to the Secretary of State. As Principal Regulator I understand that the Secretary of State has the power and responsibility to refer serious concerns such as mine about an exempt charity to the Charity Commission for investigation.

I am a former pupil of St Mary’s (1970-77, when it was a direct grant Grammar school) and my experiences then and recently, as well as my review of the College’s annual report 2016/17, have led me strongly to believe that the Society of Mary is not a fit and proper organisation to be trusted with the provision of this vital service to the young people of the Blackburn with Darwen area.

Failure to prevent, detect or disclose historical abuse of pupils

Since October 2017 I have been in correspondence with the Safeguarding Officer for the Marist Fathers, […] at the Diocese of Middlesbrough, once I became aware that the Marists had failed to report to police at the time the historical abuse of a pupil in the 1970s/80s and which was disclosed to them by the victim in the 1990s, resulting in the ‘ill-health retirement’ of the perpetrator, the then Headteacher, and now late, Father Kevin O’Neill. Though the abuse was admitted by O’Neill, the College went ahead and named an Arts Block after him in 2008 prior to his death in 2011. This, even though the Marists were and remain the Colleges Trustees and appoint most of the governors, including one of their own priests.

I have also lodged a complaint with [the Safeguarding Coordinator] and have made a statement to the police about the behaviour of another Marist priest towards me at SMC in the 1970s, but I will not go into that here.

In relation to the Principal Regulator’s regulatory responsibilities, I am concerned that the Marist Fathers have failed in their duties as Trustees of SMC in a number of serious ways, in that:

  • They failed to report to the police, and to my knowledge the Charity Commission, a serious crime of sexual abuse by one of their members and a Headmaster of SMC, the late Kevin O’Neill, that was perpetrated against a schoolboy at SMC. The abuse took place in the 1970s/80s and was brought to light by the now adult victim, Graham Caveney, in the early 1990s. Mr Caveney has written a book that includes his account of the abuse, The Boy with the Perpetual Nervousness, reviews of which can be found online.
  • O’Neill was retired as Head teacher in 1993, with a false reason given publicly by the Marists and with all the acclaim of the school, the Marists and of many previous pupils, including myself, who were ignorant of the real reason he stepped down.
  • Instead of being reported to the police, expelled from the Marists or disciplined in any way, O’Neill was sent by the Marists (presumably at cost to the Charitable Trust) to be ‘treated’ for his sexually abusive behaviour (and, knowing the Catholic Church, for his homosexuality) to St Luke’s Institute, Maryland, USA. This bizarre and thoroughly disreputable organisation has a ‘colourful’ history of dubious therapeutic practices and criminality which can easily be researched online.
  • In 2008, whilst O’Neill was still alive, SMC named a newly built arts block after him. The Marists, as Trustees and with a governor of SMC, stood by and allowed this to happen without alerting the then Headteacher or senior management that this would be inappropriate and highly upsetting and insulting to O’Neill’s one known victim.
  • O’ Neill died in 2011. I and several other past pupils attended his requiem mass as did teachers and other members of the community served by SMC, still in ignorance of his crimes. Only in late 2017 did I become aware through Mr Caveney’s book of O’Neill’s abusive behaviour towards him.
  • I was a pupil at SMC 1970-77 when O’Neill was deputy Headteacher and he taught me English and Religious Studies. Whilst he did not sexually assault me, he did make me the object of what I have long suspected to be, and now recognise clearly, as his grooming behaviour. His befriending of and relationship with me as a vulnerable adolescent was almost identical to his approach to Graham Caveney a few years later, failing only to take the final step into overt sexual behaviour and assault. Had the Marists done their moral duty in bringing O’Neill’s abuse to light once they knew about it, I (and for all I know others) would also have come forward with my own story at the time.


Since October 2017 I have been in correspondence with the Safeguarding Officer responsible for the Marist order, both in relation to the O’Neill case and to the classroom behaviour of another Marist priest towards me in the early 1970s which I will not go into here. The Safeguarding Officer is […], based at the Diocese of Middlesbrough. Whilst the initial response to my questions and concerns was relatively quick, a supplementary set of questions that I submitted on 5 December 2017 has yet to receive a substantive reply.

The above summarises my concerns in relation to sexual abuse and its cover-up by the Marists and it also forms the substance of my complaint to the Charity Commission. It seems to me that both morally and legally the Marist order has fallen well short of the standards required and expected by the Department for Education, the Charity Commission, the College and the Charity’s beneficiaries and the public who fund their activities and maintain their assets. Consequently, I believe that they should be stripped of the Trustee and governorships of St Mary’s College Blackburn and of any other educational establishments to which they are connected. Their entitlement to remain as a registered charity should also, I believe, be at least reviewed by the Charity Commission. If I had my way this status would be rescinded.

The Marist order seems to me to have consistently placed protecting their own reputation and income streams before their duties as Trustees, governors or even ordinary citizens. Their particular regulatory failings, I believe, include:

  • Breach of Trust, eg by failing to act reasonably or responsibly as Trustees or school governors
  • Failure to act for public benefit in relation to the O’Neill case
  • Failure to report a serious incident to the Charity Commission or the DfE
  • Failure to report a crime of sexual abuse against a schoolboy to the police
  • Placing beneficiaries of the College and the Trust at risk both physically and mentally, whether at the time of O’Neill’s abuse or subsequently in their management of a known incident
  • Applying charitable funds inappropriately, ie in funding O’Neill’s ‘treatment’ at the St Luke’s Institute, Maryland, USA
  • Behaving in such a way as to bring the charity and the charitable sector into disrepute
  • Having no adequate corporate governance framework over many years that would prevent, detect or report abuse such as O’Neill’s and no capacity for independent scrutiny or separation of duties within a small, close-knit organisation of colleagues who are also in many cases long-term friends
  • Contrary to the College’s Statement of Corporate Governance and Internal Control in their annual financial statements, failing to abide by the ‘Nolan Principals’ of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.


Poor stewardship, financial management and accounting

I need not rehearse the parlous financial position to which the Trustees and governing body have brought the College. This is well documented by the EFA and SFCC in their published reports.

What I would say is that I found the College’s 2016/17 Members’ Report and Financial Statements (MRFS) to vastly underplay and arguably fail to disclose their true financial position and longer-term prospects for sustainability. And this even though the MRFS was produced after the interventions by EFA and SFCC.

Though technically a going concern, given that they are likely to be bailed out short to medium term by the EFA, left to their own devices the College would soon be unable to meet significant loan commitments as they fall due (by March 2018 according to page 15 of the MRFS).

This also calls into question the quality of investment appraisal and business planning undertaken by the governors and Trustees before embarking upon a very significant building programme funded by bank loans over the last ten years. This again is not reflected in the College’s upbeat assessment of their own governance and risk management in the MRFS.

Again, from reading both SMC and the Society of Mary’s most recent financial statements, it seems to me that the combined and separate accounting for the land and buildings on the College site are inadequate in terms of external accountability for these material and service-critical resources, let alone facilitating their sustainable management by the College and the public agencies to which they are accountable. I consider that the values of these assets should be disclosed in full in the appropriate controlling entity’s balance sheet (probably the College’s) and that any liabilities and/or legal charges against the assets accrued by the College to the Marists should be disclosed in both sets of accounts. This is currently achieved only partially or in the vaguest of terms in either set of accounts, meaning that the financial position for a very material element of the Trustees’ and governors’ custodianship remains inappropriately opaque to a user of those accounts.


This letter is to make you aware of the untenable position, as I see it, of the Marist Fathers in the onerous position of responsibility they currently hold, and to ask you as Principal Regulator to refer the matter for investigation to the Charity Commission and ensure that the Marists are removed from this role in Blackburn, and ideally from any other publicly funded educational establishments with which they are involved.

If you wish to discuss with me further, please do not hesitate to contact me […].

Yours sincerely

Damian Murray





Appendix 4

Letter to my MP from Minister for Education

Letter from Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills to Fabian Hamilton MP, 9 May 2018:


Dear Fabian

Thank you very much for your letter of 11 April, addressed to the Secretary of State, on behalf of your constituent, Mr Damian Murray […], about his complaint against St Mary’s College Blackburn. I am replying as the minister responsible for this policy area.

I was sorry to read of Mr Murray’s concerns. As he is aware, the Secretary of State is the Principal Regulator for sixth form college corporations. Where there are concerns that fall within the Secretary of State’s duties in this role, he may refer sixth form college corporations to the Charity Commission for them to exercise their powers under the Charities Act 2011. I can confirm that the Secretary of State has not referred St Mary’s College to the Charity Commission.

It may however be helpful to note that the Secretary of State authorised placing the college under a Notice to Improve for financial health in February 2017. The conditions of the Notice authorise intervention and scrutiny by the Further Education Commissioner (FEC), along with regular monitoring by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). Regular reports are submitted to ministers on the intervention and monitoring arrangements in place for the college. In addition, both the FEC and the EFSA continue to meet regularly with the college to review their financial position, leadership and governance.

These interventions have meant St Mary’s College has not required any additional financial support to date. The ESFA and FEC are now working with the college leadership and governors to identify a solution that can provide the college with a sustainable long-term future.

The college is also subject to the requirements of the ESFA’s guidance on college accounts direction. This requires colleges to provide a financial statement that is independently and externally audited on an annual basis. A copy of this guidance is available on GOV.UK at:

Regarding Mr Murray’s particular concerns about safeguarding risks to individual children and vulnerable adults, I should explain that the statutory duties in relation to safeguarding individuals lie with local authorities. I understand that officials have not been made aware of any current safeguarding concerns that would warrant further action in this case. In terms of allegations of historic abuse, our advice remains that any such allegations should be referred to the police.

I hope this is helpful in replying to Mr Murray.


Rt Hon Anne Milton MP
Minister of State for Apprenticeships and skills



Appendix 5

Correspondence with Charity Commission

Letter to of complaint to Charity Commission 11 February 2018

Dear Sir/Madam

Complaint re Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) Charitable Trust, no. 235412

In relation to the Charity Commission’s regulatory responsibilities, I am concerned that the Marist Fathers have failed in their duties as Trustees of St Mary’s College Blackburn (SMC) in a number of ways, in that:

  • They failed to report to the police, and to my knowledge the Charity Commission, a serious crime of sexual abuse by one of their members and a Headmaster of SMC, the late Kevin O’Neill, that was perpetrated against a schoolboy at SMC. The abuse took place in the 1970s/80s and was brought to light by the now adult victim, Graham Caveney, in the early 1990s. Mr Caveney has written a book that includes his account of the abuse, The Boy with the Perpetual Nervousness, reviews of which can be found online.
  • O’Neill was retired as Head teacher in 1993, with a false reason given publicly by the Marists and with all the acclaim of the school, the Marists and of many previous pupils, including myself, who were ignorant of the real reason he stepped down.
  • Instead of being reported to the police, expelled from the Marists or disciplined in any way, O’Neill was sent by the Marists (presumably at cost to the Charitable Trust) to be ‘treated’ for his sexually abusive behaviour (and, knowing the Catholic Church, for his homosexuality) to St Luke’s Institute, Maryland, USA. This bizarre and thoroughly disreputable organisation has a ‘colourful’ history of dubious therapeutic practices and criminality which can easily be researched online.
  • In 2008, whilst O’Neill was still alive, SMC named a newly built arts block after him. The Marists, as Trustees and with a governor of SMC, stood by and allowed this to happen without alerting the then Headteacher or senior management that this would be inappropriate and highly upsetting and insulting to O’Neill’s one known victim.
  • O’ Neill died in 2011. I and several other past pupils attended his requiem mass as did teachers and other members of the community served by SMC, still in ignorance of his crimes. Only in late 2017 did I become aware through Mr Caveney’s book of O’Neill’s abusive behaviour towards him.
  • I was a pupil at SMC 1970-77 when O’Neill was deputy Headteacher and he taught me English and Religious Studies. Whilst he did not sexually assault me, he did make me the object of what I have long suspected to be, and now recognise clearly, as his grooming behaviour. His befriending of and relationship with me as a vulnerable adolescent was almost identical to his approach to Graham Caveney a few years later, failing only to take the final step into overt sexual behaviour and assault. Had the Marists done their moral duty in bringing O’Neill’s abuse to light once they knew about it, I (and for all I know others) would also have come forward with my own story at the time.

Since October 2017 I have been in correspondence with the Safeguarding Officer responsible for the Marist order, both in relation to the O’Neill case and to the classroom behaviour of another Marist priest towards me in the early 1970s which I will not go into here. The Safeguarding Officer is […], based at the Diocese of Middlesbrough. Whilst the initial response to my questions and concerns was relatively quick, a supplementary set of questions that I submitted on 5 December 2017 has yet to receive a substantive reply.

The above summarises my concerns to date and forms the premise of my complaint to the Charity Commission. It seems to me that, both morally and legally, the Marist order has fallen well short of the standards required and expected by the Charity Commission, their beneficiaries and the public. Consequently I believe that they should be stripped of the Trustee and governorships of St Mary’s College Blackburn and of any other educational establishments to which they are connected. Their entitlement to remain as a registered charity should also, I believe, be at least reviewed by the Charity Commission. If I had my way this status would be rescinded.

The Marist order seems to me to have consistently placed protecting their own reputation and income streams before their duties as Trustees, governors or even ordinary citizens. Their particular regulatory failings, I believe, include:

  • Breach of Trust, eg by failing to act reasonably or responsibly as Trustees or school governors
  • Failure to act for public benefit in relation to the O’Neill case
  • Failure to report a serious incident to the Charity Commission
  • Failure to report a crime of sexual abuse against a schoolboy to the police
  • Placing beneficiaries of the Trust at risk both physically and mentally, whether at the time of O’Neill’s abuse or subsequently in their management of a known incident
  • Applying charitable funds inappropriately, ie in funding O’Neill’s ‘treatment’ at the St Luke’s Institute, Maryland, USA
  • Behaving in such a way as to bring the charity and the charitable sector into disrepute
  • Having no adequate corporate governance framework over many years that would prevent, detect or report abuse such as O’Neill’s and no capacity for independent scrutiny or separation of duties within a small, close-knit organisation of colleagues who are also in many cases long-term friends.

Please advise me of what, if any, your next steps will be and if there is any further input or information you would require from me.

Yours faithfully

Damian Murray


[NB: letter also sent 19 March chasing a response.]



Charity Commission response to 11 February complaint, 2 May 2018


Dear Mr Murray


Thank you for your letter dated 11 February and 19 March in which you raise concerns about the above Charity. Sorry for the delay in replying the commission has been receiving a high volume of correspondence.

We note the concerns you have raised regarding the former Headmaster of SMC. The commission is aware of the situation and we are monitoring the situation.

Thank you for contacting us, we will keep a record of your concerns on file. However we will not be providing updates regarding this matter.

Yours sincerely


Monitoring and Enforcement Team




Follow up complaint letter to Charity Commission, 5 May 2018

Dear […]

Complaint re Marist Fathers, Charity no 235412

It did not take me long to read your response to the complaint that I first submitted to you on 11 February, some 80 days previously.

If you reflect on your words, you ought not be surprised that I find your letter to be peremptory, vacuous, dismissive and probably negligent.

You have given no substantive response to any of the detailed and serious concerns that I raised about this charity and what you have said is essentially meaningless. Of what ‘circumstances’ are you aware? In what way might they be being ‘monitored’? Who is doing this monitoring and what plan of action do they have over what timescale?

The Marist Fathers as a corporate entity has covered up and failed to report to the police the paedophile sexual assault by a Marist head teacher on a pupil in his care. They lied to the public, donors and beneficiaries about the reason this priest left his job. They went on to name a school building after this known predatory paedophile. In corporate governance terms they have, to say the very least, flouted every single one of the Nolan Principles of conduct. I myself was molested as a child by one of the priests still active in this charity and this is currently the subject of a police investigation under Operation Hydrant.

The Marist Fathers have behaved in a corrupt, devious and dangerous way towards vulnerable young people. They remain the Trustees and governors of several schools. And you are monitoring the circumstances. Is this this really an appropriate degree of regulatory action?

I consider that you have not addressed these extremely serious concerns at all. I would go as far as to say that this tolerance of abusive institutions by the Charity Commission explains a lot about how predatory paedophiles can find a safe haven in the charitable sector.

I will therefore ask you once again to respond substantively to each of the specific, serious concerns that I raised in my original complaint letter. If I receive no competent, professional reply from you within ten working days, I will escalate my concerns about your failure to meet your responsibilities to the Charity Ombudsman, to my MP and, if necessary, to the press.

Yours sincerely

Damian Murray






Email from Charity Commission in reply to 5 May letter, 15 June 2018


20180615 Email from the Charity Commission detailing our role and requesting further information – to Mr Damian Murray CRM:0375100


Dear Mr Murray


I refer to the letters you have sent to the Commission concerning the above charity dated 11 February 2018; 19 March 2018 and 5 May 2018.

I have looked through this correspondence and apologise for the delays you have encountered in receiving a full response.

The Role of the Commission regarding Safeguarding.


I would firstly ask you to note that the Charity Commission has an important regulatory role in ensuring that trustees comply with their legal duties and responsibilities in managing their charity. In the context of safeguarding issues, it has a specific regulatory role which is focused on the conduct of trustees and the steps they take to protect beneficiaries and other persons who come into contact with the charity.


We will give the highest priority to any case where there is any live risk of harm or damage to the charity, its assets which includes its reputation, and/or its beneficiaries or any live risk of harm to the general public.

I would ask you to note that the Commission is not a prosecuting authority.  Any criminal offences should be reported to the respective authorities including the Police and I have noted that this has been done in this case.

I attach some further guidance below related to our role and strategy for dealing with safeguarding concerns within charities –

Strategy for Dealing with Safeguarding Issues

The Commission’s Regulatory Work

Further Information Required and To Note –

I can confirm that the Commission may be contacting the above charity about the issues you have detailed in your letter but before I do this could I ask for the following information –

  • The details and any reference numbers of the referral to the Police – I will need to contact the Police prior to any contact being made with the Commission to ensure that this does not affect any investigation that they have in place and are undertaking.  I will obviously let you know if I am advised not to proceed with any contact.  I would also ask you to note that if contact is made with the charity the Commission does not provide regular updates but will normally let you know when the case is closed and the result of the conclusion of our correspondence.
  • You have also advised in your letter of 19 March that you have correspondence from the charity’s safeguarding officer which you consider the Commission should have sight of.  I would appreciate it if you could send this through to me.

Finally I would also ask you to note, that I am not contactable by phone until Monday due to some connection issues.  I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause but can confirm that I am fully contactable by email.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely


Charity Commission

Monitoring & Enforcement Team




Letter to Charity Commission investigating officer, 17 June 2018

Dear […]

Complaint re Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) Charitable Trust, no. 235412

Per our recent exchange of emails, I enclose my correspondence with the Marists’ Safeguarding Officer […] regarding the Marist’s ethical and governance failings in the way they dealt with the grooming and sexual abuse perpetrated by the late Father Kevin O’Neill, former Headteacher of St Mary’s College Blackburn.

I would emphasise again that my concerns relate not to current safeguarding arrangements at the school, which are doubtless compliant, but to the behaviours of Marists priests, individually and as a charitable trust, who remain in positions of responsibility in spite of the dereliction of their duties of trust and care and their failure to observe any of the Nolan Principles of Public Life in relation to the O’Neill case, either at the time they were made aware of the abuse in the early 1990s or subsequently.

The crime reference for my allegation of non-recent abuse against a current Marist priest is ED1720943 and it is also filed at Lancashire Constabulary’s Operation Fervent under reference no. 359. The officer in charge is DI Dave Groombridge (10645) who can be contacted at Lancashire Constabulary by telephone via the 101 number. The priest was interviewed under caution in May this year. He declined to answer my specific allegation and the case is not currently being pursued pending further witnesses or victims coming forward. Whilst this remains a realistic possibility, you will not interfere with any current police action by contacting the Marists in your capacity as charity regulator.

I understand that you may be reluctant to speak to me by phone or face to face, but a conversation will almost certainly be the most efficient way to clarify our respective concerns and approaches. Whilst I have remained persistent in the face of reluctance and deflection to date on the part of those with the power and responsibility to act on the issues I have raised, I can guarantee always to be professional, objective and courteous in any dialogue.

Yours sincerely

Damian Murray




Charity Commission letter notifying investigation decision, 28 January 2019

[NB: 11 months since my first letter of complaint.]

Dear Mr Murray



I refer to our recent correspondence concerning the above charity including the following emails to which I have not responded previously –


  • Email of 20 December 2018 – containing the attachment to the letter to [Marist Secretary] and also a letter to [Marist Secretary] dated 20/12/2018.


  • Email of 27 December 2018 – attaching a copy of an email sent to […] (Middlesbrough Diocesan Safeguarding Officer)


  • Email of 7 January 2019 – attaching a letter from [Marist Secretary] dated 3 January and a response from you dated 7 January 2019.


The Commission has noted the information in these emails.


Conclusions of Commission Case


As you are aware the Commission has been in correspondence with both yourself and the above charity for some time and having now considered the correspondence we have received provide the following conclusions which are based on the information that has been provided.  We also acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations made against Father O’Neill and the affect this has had on the people concerned.


Communication – The Commission does recognise that there has been issues with the communication between SOMMF and Saint Mary’s College (SMC) which have resulted in many of the concerns you have brought to our attention including the naming of a building after Father O’Neill and the concerns related to Father Horsley.  We have been informed that communication between the organisations is now much improved and we have provided SOMMF with advice and guidance in relation to this issue.  We particularly want to be assured that there are clear communication channels between SOMMF and SMC going forward to ensure that both parties are appropriately made aware of any serious incidents that may occur in the future and may follow up this issue with SOMMF.


Safeguarding – The Commission is satisfied that SOMMF now has well developed safeguarding procedures established by the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service and any incidents would be dealt with correctly including reporting issues to the Police.  Based on the information we have received, whilst it would appear that you did not always agree with their decisions, the charity seems to have dealt appropriately with the complaints and issues you have brought to their attention in that they have responded to issues and you have met with representatives acting for SOMMF to discuss issues.


Conflicts of Interest – Although it cannot be proven, there could be a perception in respect of possible conflicts of interest in the way that the allegations of abuse were dealt with in the past when reported to SOMMF.  The charity is being provided with advice and guidance in respect of this issue.


Decision and Closure of Case


Obviously the incident related to Mr Caveney happened some time ago and you have also made allegations which you have reported to the Police who are not taking the issues forward.


The Commission assesses the nature and level of risk on a case by case basis and this can be affected by several issues including whether the issues are ongoing or in the past and the capacity and willingness of the trustees to remedy the issues.


The Commission has fully assessed the information that has been sent in relation to the allegations of historic sexual abuse and your concerns about the way this was dealt with including issues with conflict of interest and your allegation that there was a cover up in respect of the alleged abuse by Father O’Neill.


We have also assessed information sent in by SOMMF including the way they have dealt with your complaints and the policies and procedures they have in place going forward.   As indicated above we have provided the charity with advice and guidance going forward.


The Commission cannot become involved in the administration of a charity but we would expect it to deal appropriately with any concerns raised including historical concerns.  Similarly we would want to be assured that the charity is operating correctly and has robust safeguarding processes and procedures in place.  The Commission is satisfied based on the information we have received that this is the case.


After considering the information the Commission has concluded that it will not be taking any further action in respect of the historic allegations and will be closing our case.  Obviously if further issues come to light in the future we may assess these and re-engage with the charity if we consider it is required.  We may monitor the charity going forward to ensure that they act appropriately in respect of the concerns we listed above.


Complaints Procedure


We recognise that you may be disappointed and you can, of course, appeal against our decision.  I have attached information about this process below.


Charity Commission Complaints Procedure


Finally, we confirm that a letter is being sent to the SOMMF today also detailing the conclusions of this case.


Yours sincerely




Charity Commission

Monitoring & Enforcement Team




Response to Charity Commission’ requesting decision review, 6 February 2019

[NB: in CC-required email format]

Grounds for decision review

It is not clear from the decision letter dated 28 January 2019 (Ref KTP/235412/C475532/MET) under which of its powers and responsibilities the Charity Commission conducted its investigation or came to its decision.

Be that as it may, the basis upon which I would challenge the conclusions in the letter is that they do not address many of the specific complaints that I made in my correspondence with [investigator], focusing rather on administrative generalities in a way neither fair nor proportionate given the seriousness of a decades-long cover-up of serious sexual abuse by the Marist Fathers.

In particular, the conclusions fail to address the ways in which the interests and goodwill of the charity’s beneficiaries and donors have been disregarded and abused, the charity’s continuing culture of secrecy and bullying, and the roles of individuals still active in the charity whether as acting or former trustees or as, in one case, governor of St Mary’s College Blackburn (SMC) during the period of the cover-up and to the present day.

I will not rehearse all my specific complaints here, they are set out clearly in the correspondence I have already sent to the Commission.

In short, I do not believe that the Commission’s response has been relevant, fair or proportionate to the issues that I raised first with Commission in January 2018. The Commission only reluctantly pursued my concerns in the first place, and I feel that this reluctance has been reflected both in the sheer amount of time it has taken to respond, on the part of the Commission and of the Marists, and the rather superficial and ‘admin-based’ conclusions reached.

During the period of my complaint the Marist charity was also allowed to convert to being a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO), this I found to be odd, given the serious nature of the complaint outstanding against them, but it also suggested to me that, in allowing the conversion, the Commission had already concluded that there was no case to answer before all the evidence was weighed and considered.

Nor at any time during my correspondence with Charity Commission has anyone there spoken directly to me either by telephone or in person, although on several occasions I made the offer to speak and/or meet. This does not seem to me to be good investigative practice in circumstances as serious, complex, long-standing and nuanced as in this case. As a minimum, a meeting to discuss and clarify the issues would have speeded up the process and have left less room for misunderstanding on all sides.

Additional information or evidence

Two specific and serious issues additionally do not appear to have been taken into account in the Commission’s deliberations or conclusions:

  1. During the period of the cover-up (more than 20 years) the Marists received donations and legacies amounting to hundreds and thousands, if not millions, of pounds. [Note by DM, Sept 2020: much of this may be Marist personal income from pensions, salaries etc. Point re donors still stands however.*] It is difficult not to conclude that had many of these donors been aware that Austin Horsley and others had concealed serious sexual abuse by a headteacher on a pupil, they would have placed their scarce, precious resources elsewhere. In my opinion this amounts to obtaining very significant financial benefit essentially by deception. What is the Commission’s opinion about this?
  2. In the final paragraph of their first letter to me dated 7 December 2018, the Trustees of the Marists wrote: “With respect, the contents of this letter are strictly private, confidential and personal to its recipients and should not be discussed or passed to any third party without first seeking prior consent from the Trustees”. Far from being respectful, I found this unwarranted condition to be threatening and bullying and a continuation of the culture of secrecy that led to the cover-up in the first place. This to my mind contradicts the Commission’s conclusion that the charity’s safeguarding and communications arrangements are now up to its standards. We know that the Marists do not believe that the Nolan Principles of Public Life applied to them, and this is simply further, continuing evidence of that.


Reasoned argument why decision is wrong


“Issues with the communication between [the Marists] and SMC” severely understates the Marists’ intentional deception of the school, donors and beneficiaries, the public and the Commission for over two decades.

The school’s arts block named after the sexual abuser and former headteacher Kevin O’Neill whilst the Marist governor Noel Wynn and other Marists stood by and allowed it. When the Marists were aware of the abuse, after lying publicly about the reason for O’Neill’s removal, the school was also permitted to award to students an annual prize for achievement in O’Neill’s name whilst Fr Wynn and doubtless other Marists looked on at prize-giving evenings.

“Improving communication” is the least that needed to happen and is not an adequate response by the Commission. As well as a public case report and a reprimand for the Marists by the Commission, I would have expected the circumstances of the cover-up to have been referred by the Commission to the Secretary of State for Education as Principal Regulator of SMC.


The Marists’ safeguarding arrangements are provided by a third party, the Diocese of Middlesbrough. Whilst the Diocese’s Safeguarding Officer (SO) has behaved properly in his dealings with me, he is dependent upon the Marists coming forward and observing Nolan Principles in notifying any current or historical safeguarding issues to him. Nothing in the UK Marists’ conduct (including their insistence that I too maintain secrecy about them) suggests that this would be guaranteed to happen, and I see no reason why the Commission concludes that it would.

The Marists have not “dealt appropriately” with my complaints. Middlesbrough’s SO did respond properly to the best of his knowledge and ability, but I concluded that he was not given a full or entirely truthful story by the Marists, but rather the bare minimum they felt they could get away with. This was certainly their approach with me.

The meeting with the Marist European Superior was welcome and his regrets sincere, but he was fairly new to the job, with no first-hand knowledge of the issues. The meeting was also only offered once the main perpetrator of the cover-up, Austin Horsley, had died in April. The meeting in August 2018 was in fact the first mention of his name, although I had first raised concerns in October 2017. The letters I received from the Marists in December 2018, which exposed even more their dismissive attitudes and persistent deceptions, were only sent to me at the prompting of the Commission and were by no means an exemplar of good communication or safeguarding practice.

Conflicts of interest

The Commission does not specify the conflicts of interests to which it is referring. The whole chain of events over many years, and to date, seems to me to have been designed by the Marists to serve the interests of the Marists, to frustrate their proper accountability and to avoid risk to their reputation or the loss of donation and legacy income. Again, “perception in respect of possible conflicts of interest” seems to me a weak and insupportable conclusion.

Decision and closure of case

The distance in time of the Caveney abuse is irrelevant. It was the Marists’ decades-long cover-up that contributed to my delay in making a complaint.

The allegation I reported to the police is irrelevant. Nothing in my complaint to the Commission hinges on my molestation as a child at the hands of a Marist priest still benefiting from the charity.

Neither O’Neill’s abuse nor the subsequent cover-up are “alleged”. Both are admitted and well-evidenced. The Marists’ European Superior at our meeting in August freely stated that “wrong decisions” had been made by the UK Marists.

In summary, I disagree with most of the Commission’s findings and all of its conclusions.

The evidence is that the Marists are not fit or proper to be school trustees or governors. Nor does anything in the UK Marists’ responses suggest that, either culturally or in governance terms, they could be trusted to prevent, detect or report and historical, current or future abuse of a vulnerable person by any of their members.

I also believe that the deception of donors and beneficiaries over many years has in all probability resulted in the receipt of funds that could and would otherwise have gone to more honest and deserving charities. [*]

The Marists’ conduct should in my opinion have resulted in a public report by the Commission to ensure that all that had been previously hidden was brought properly to light and that future beneficiaries, donors and other stakeholders could make properly informed decisions before providing cash and other support, or giving onerous and sensitive public responsibilities, to such a morally derelict organisation.

As it stands, the Charity Commission has, on the contrary, put its weight approvingly behind the Marists’ behaviour from 1993 to date, with a few minor recommendations to “improve communication” and avoid the “perception” of conflicts of interest.

From: Damian Murray

[* General donations to Marists in 2016 were £46k (2015, £52k). Extrapolated over 20 years, this would approach £1m, excluding legacies.]




Result of ‘Stage 1’ decision review by Charity Commission, 22 February 2019

Our ref: C-494131/JK/Stage 1

Dear Mr Murray,

THE SOCIETY OF MARY (MARIST FATHERS) – 235412 (‘the Charity’)

Thank you for your e-mail of 6 February 2019, in which you have requested a decision review.

Our Decision Review procedure can be used to challenge any decision which can be considered by the First-tier Tribunal (Charity) (listed in the table in Schedule 6 of the Charities Act 2011) and any decision either to exercise or not to exercise a legal power which is not listed in schedule 6. As we have not exercised a legal power in this case, Your complaint has been passed to me to consider under the Commission’s stage 1 review procedure. This is the first step in our complaints process. The aim is to try to resolve complaints locally as close as possible to the point of dissatisfaction, so that if we have made any errors we can put them right quickly.

A stage 1 review is carried out where a customer is dissatisfied about the standards of service they have received on a case and/or about the outcome of a case, or if they consider that they have not been provided with a service that the Commission states that it will provide.


I have reviewed the case and conclude that it was dealt with in accordance with our own internal guidance, policies and procedures and in furtherance of our objectives, general functions and duties as outlined in sections 13 to 16 of the Charities Act 2011.

I have made the following observations in consideration of your complaint:

  • The Commission’s e-mail to you of 15 June 2018, made clear the Commission’s regulatory position and that in the context of safeguarding issues, it has a specific regulatory role which is focused on the conduct of trustees and the steps they take to protect beneficiaries and other persons who come into contact with the Charity. We further explained our limits as a regulator and that we are not a prosecuting authority.
  • I acknowledge that there were delays in the progression of this case, and note that we did apologise for this. However, we have seen an increase in reporting to us since February 2018, and as I am sure you will understand cases are dealt with in order of risk priority, and that we prioritise those with a live risk. The delay does not mean that we did not take your complaint seriously.
  • Our regulatory role in this particular case was to ensure that the trustees were complying with their legal duties and responsibilities in managing their charity. In the context of safeguarding issues, we focus on the conduct of trustees and the steps they take to protect beneficiaries and other persons who come into contact with the charity in accordance with them discharging their duty of care.
  • Whilst the matter relates to historic allegations of abuse, as the police confirmed that they would not be taking matters any further unless witnesses or other victims came forward. The Commission’s regulatory role in this case was limited to the current governance of the Charity. Unfortunately it is not within the Commission’s remit to support or advocate for victims of abuse/ alleged abuse.
  • The Commission considered whether the conversion of the Charity to a CIO had any impact on the circumstances of the case which was being considered at that point, and decided that it did not. I therefore make no further comment in this regard.
  • Whilst I appreciate you were disappointed with the Commission’s engagement with you, the Commission has a duty to utilise its resources carefully and it is not possible for us to meet face to face with each complainant. I note that the case officer did offer to speak to you by telephone. At the point that we considered that we had enough information we were then able to draw our conclusions.
  • I have considered the closure letter of 28 January 2019 and find the explanations to be sufficient. I consider that the Commission has fully considered your complaint and provided an adequate response.

Whilst I appreciate that you may find this response disappointing, and that it was not the outcome that you wanted, I hope the explanation provided is helpful.

This letter concludes my consideration of your complaint and I hope that you have found it helpful. However, if you remain dissatisfied with the standard of service you have received, then please email the Business Assurance Team on or before 22 March 2019 at and a review of the way your complaint has been handled will be undertaken by a member of that team.

Yours sincerely


Senior Case Manager

Monitoring & Enforcement Team




Request for Charity Commission Stage 2 review, 25 February 2019


Dear Sir/Madam

Stage 2 complaint: Concealment of sexual abuse by The Society of Mary (Marist Fathers) 235412

I refer you to [investigator’s] decision review letter dated 22 February 2019, ref C-494131/JK/Stage 1 and to all of my previous correspondence with […] of the Commission’s Monitoring and Enforcement Team. I remain unsatisfied both with the Commission’s response to my original complaint against the Marist Fathers and with [investigator’s] Stage 1 review.

It now honestly feels to me as though the Commission is responding to a complaint that it thinks I have made rather than the one that I have in fact made. Both […] and [investigator’s] responses focus puzzlingly upon incidental or even irrelevant features of my complaint against the Marists, and they seem unable or unwilling to discern or focus upon the core truths that I have brought to the Commission’s attention, demonstrating that the Marists have for many years been and remain in breach of trust and of their charitable objects. I therefore believe that my original complaint against the Marists and against […]’s initial decision still stand and have not been adequately addressed.

As part of the Stage 1 findings, [investigator] states: “I have reviewed the case and conclude that it was dealt with in accordance with our own internal guidance, policies and procedures and in furtherance of our objectives, general functions and duties as outlined in sections 13 to 16 of the Charities Act 2011” (CA2011). I do not have access to your internal guidance, but I have read the relevant sections of CA2011 as well as the Commission’s Revised Regulatory Statement on the website.

As far as s.14 of CA2011 is concerned, I fail to see how, in dealing with the Marists’ long-term concealment of sexual abuse, the Commission has met its statutory objectives in relation to public confidence (s.14.1) or accountability (s.14.5). Arguably, the Marists have also acted in contravention of their public benefit duty (s.14.2).

As far as s.15 of CA2011 is concerned I also fail to see how the Commission has discharged its statutory functions, in particular:

  • Identifying and investigating apparent misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of charities and taking remedial or protective action in connection with misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of charities. (s.15(1)3) This and my previous letters address why I think this duty has not been met.
  • Obtaining, evaluating and disseminating information in connection with the performance of any of the Commission’s functions or meeting any of its objectives. (s.15(1)5) I believe that the Commission should issue a case report setting out the Marists’ decades-long concealment of sexual abuse in order that beneficiaries, donors and other stakeholders are able to make properly informed decisions when dealing with the charity.
  • Giving information or advice, or making proposals, to any Minister of the Crown on matters relating to any of the Commission’s functions or meeting any of its objectives. (s.15(1)6) I believe that the Commission ought to have reported the concealment of sexual abuse to the Secretary of State for Education, given the fact that the abuse concealed was between a Marist headteacher, Father Kevin O’Neill, and a pupil at St Mary’s College Blackburn (SMC) and given that the Marists were and remain trustees and/or governors of SMC and two other publicly-funded colleges in England.


You will be familiar with the Commission’s Regulatory Statement. Even at this high level of generality it seems clear to me that its aspirations have not been met in this case:

  • The strategic priority of ‘enhancing transparency and the rigour’ with which the Commission holds charities accountable has not been met.
  • Under compliance and enforcement, I do not believe the Commission has used information ‘effectively to identify risk and to pursue abuse of charity’, nor has it acted ‘where there is significant risk to public trust and confidence’.
  • Under accountability and transparency, the Commission has not published a report on ‘the outcomes of and lessons from’ this case. I believe this case to be significant because of its serious nature and duration, the continuing insistence on secrecy by the Marists, and the consistency of the abuse and its concealment with the endemic culture and practice of sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). To underline the significance of this case, there is a national Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) currently under way in the UK with a specific strand of inquiry dedicated to the RCC, and even the Pope is currently convening a worldwide conference of bishops on the subject.
  • Under efficient, objective and proportionate regulator, the Commission says it aims to ‘act robustly whenever we have reasons to doubt the veracity of information provided to us, or where trustees are unreasonably slow or unwilling to respond to our concerns’. In my view, the Marists responded extremely and unreasonably slowly to the concerns I raised via the Commission (and directly with them by me, come to that). Nor were the Marists entirely open or truthful in their responses, for example only disclosing the name of the main perpetrator of the cover-up, Father Austin Healey, once he had died.


Below I address the bullet points in [Investigator]’s letter of 22 February (I have numbered them for convenience of reference).

Bullet points in Stage 1 decision letter

  • The Commission’s regulatory responsibilities were indeed explained to me, in the broadest possible terms, at the outset and I acknowledged that I understood them. I am not asking the Commission to act outwith its regulatory remit. Whilst my complaint against the Marists does have its roots in their failure to safeguard the children in its care, my core complaint is not primarily a safeguarding matter; it relates to the Marists’ decades-long flouting of basic standards of governance, accountability or openness and the fact that it has acted, and continues to act, against the interests of its beneficiaries and donors, the general public and the charitable sector as a whole.
  • As I had myself observed when chasing progress, the Commission has treated my complaint as low priority. I understand that these judgements have to be made when allocating scarce resources. Nevertheless, the Marists’ disregard for basic standards of governance was and remains a ‘live risk’ and they are even now continuing to demand that secrecy around their cover-up is maintained. Had the Commission insisted more urgently upon a prompt response from the Marists I would also have been made aware, whilst he was still alive, that the main perpetrator of the cover-up, Father Austin Healey, had been allowed to vet the Marists’ responses to my initial complaint to them. He died, apparently unexpectedly, in April 2018. Only after this did a Marist representative offer to meet me, and only after being pressed by the Commission did the Marists write to me with explanations that only confirmed and intensified my concerns about their culture and behaviours.
  • See response to bullet points 1 and 2.
  • The Commission appears to be confusing two separate, though linked, strands of my experience at the hands of the Marists, as well as misunderstanding their relevance to my core complaint. I was indeed molested by Father Michael Simison when I was a pupil at SMC in the early 1970s. I was indeed groomed later in the 70s by the late Father Kevin O’Neill. O’Neill later went on to commit the sexual abuse of another pupil in the late 70s/early 80s which the Marists lied about and concealed for over 20 years after they were notified about it in 1993. I reported Simison’s behaviour to the police in 2018. He was interviewed under caution and no further action is being taken pending any other victims coming forward. Neither this nor O’Neill’s grooming is directly relevant to my core complaint. I provided that sensitive, personal information as context, as one of the reasons I felt bound to pursue the complaint with the appropriate regulatory authorities. I am not asking, and have never asked, the Commission for support or advocacy as a victim of ‘abuse/alleged abuse’, as [Investigator] puts it. For the avoidance of doubt, the abuse I suffered may correctly be described as ‘alleged’ (though it did happen); the sexual abuse of another pupil, covered up by the Marists for over 20 years, was admitted by the perpetrator and now indeed by the Marists. There is absolutely no doubt that it took place and the Marists subsequently made a secret financial settlement with the victim in, I think, 2014. It is the Marists’ behaviour in relation to the abuse of this other pupil to which my complaint is directly addressed. Though the abuse may have been ‘historical’, the cover-up by the Marists is neither non-recent nor alleged; it is the case, it is persistent and it is continuing.
  • I think this is framed the wrong way around. The Commission should in my view have considered whether the circumstances of the case would have had an impact on the Charity becoming a CIO, not vice versa. Why, coincident with my complaint, were the Marists seeking to limit the liability of individual Trustees? As the question was never put, we will never know.
  • I have no recollection of being offered a telephone conversation by […], though would be happy to be directed to any evidence for this. In one email there was a generic ‘out of office’ message stating that […] would not be available to respond to telephone calls for a period, but I would hardly say this counted as an offer to speak to me. [Investigator]’s consideration that the Commission had enough information from which to draw their conclusions seems to me, if we are talking about the correct conclusions, to be evidently wrong.
  • On the contrary, I found the explanations in the closure letter of 28 January to be opaque, highly generalised and not related to my detailed concerns; where explanations could be discerned at all, they were inadequate and incorrect for the reasons set out above and in my previous correspondence with the Commission.


The Commission has failed to address my concerns about the culture and behaviour of the Marist Fathers’ in relation to their decades-long cover up of child sexual abuse and has not, in my view, met its own statutory and regulatory responsibilities as enumerated above. Please consider this letter to be a formal complaint, now, as I understand it, at Stage 2 of the Commission’s complaints process.

Yours faithfully

Damian Murray




Charity Commission Stage 2 review letter, 21 June 2019


Dear Mr Murray



Thank you for your email and attachments of 25 February in which you set out your dissatisfaction with the stage 1 review of your complaint conducted by my colleague [investigator].


Please accept our sincere apologies for any inconvenience or frustration the delay in responding to your stage 2 request may have caused, this is due to large volumes of work the Commission is handling at present.


Your letter has been passed to the Records, Information Governance and Assurance team to consider at stage 2 of our complaints process, I am a member of that team and have now completed a stage 2 review.


It may be helpful if I first set out the parameters of the stage 2 review.


A stage 2 review looks at how the first review was handled, specifically if it:

  • addressed the issues of your complaint
  • fixed any shortfalls in our service
  • conveyed the outcome clearly
  • was thorough and fair



You first contacted the Commission in February 2018 setting out your concerns that the “Marist Fathers have failed in their duties as Trustees of St Mary’s College Blackburn” by failing to report to the Police, and to your knowledge the Commission, the sexual abuse of a schoolboy by one of their members and a headmaster of the said college.  This abuse occurred in the 70s/80s.


You wrote further to this advising that you yourself had reported a matter of abuse to the Police and this was currently under investigation.


We responded to you on 15 June, requesting further information regarding the matter reported to the Police and asking you to note our role in the context of safeguarding issues.


You were directed to further information which explains in more detail our role and approach in safeguarding matters


You responded on 17 June and emphasised that your concerns related not to current safeguarding arrangements at the school, but to the behaviours of Marists priests, individually and as a charitable trust, who remain in positions of responsibility.


You emailed the Commission on 16 August advising that you would have expected a substantive response to your concerns to which we advised we would provide you with a substantive response when our case was concluded.


We responded on 19 September advising we would provide you with a substantive response at the conclusion of our case.  We reiterated the Commission’s role in the context of safeguarding and advised that this is a historic case and there did not appear to be any immediate risk to beneficiaries or other people connected to the charity.


On 28 January we provided you with our substantive response advising you that based on our assessment of all the information we had regarding this matter we were satisfied the charity is now operating correctly and has robust policies and procedures in place regarding safeguarding.  We concluded that we would not be taking further action in respect of the historic allegations and closed our case.


Stage 1 review


You were unhappy with the handling and outcome of our case and wrote further to the Commission setting out your dissatisfaction.  In your email of the 6 February you contend that:


  • the conclusions of the case closure letter dated 28 January 2019 did not address many of the specific complaints that you made.


  • You were unhappy with the length of time taken to consider your complaint.


  • During the course of dealing with your complaint the charity were allowed to convert to a CIO.  You found this odd and it suggests to you that the Commission had already concluded that there was no case to answer before all the evidence was weighed and considered.
  • At no time during your correspondence with us has anyone spoken with you directly, either by phone or in person even though you offered.


The stage 1 review looked at your complaint and the Commission’s case again and concluded that your complaint was handled appropriately and in accordance with our policies and procedures in relation to historic cases concerning safeguarding.


The reviewer made a number of observations in the closing of their stage 1 review of your complaint, noting:


  • The Commission’s e-mail to you of 15 June 2018 made clear the Commission’s regulatory position in the context of safeguarding issues. We advised it has a specific regulatory role which is focused on the conduct of trustees and the steps they take to protect beneficiaries and other persons who come into contact with the Charity. We further explained our limits as a regulator and that we are not a prosecuting authority.


  • Acknowledging that there were delays in the progression of your complaint case for which we apologised and explained to you why these delays occurred. We provided reassurances that the delay did not mean that we did not take your complaint seriously.


  • Our regulatory role in this particular case was limited to the current governance of the charity, ensuring that the trustees were complying with their legal duties and responsibilities in managing their charity. In the context of safeguarding issues, we focus on the conduct of trustees and the steps they take to protect beneficiaries and other persons who come into contact with the charity in accordance with them discharging their duty of care.


  • The Commission considered whether the conversion of the Charity to a CIO had any impact on the circumstances of the case which was being considered at that point, and decided that it did not.


  • That it is not possible for us to meet face to face with each complainant who contacts us.
  • Found the case closure letter of 28 January 2019 to be a sufficient and adequate response to your complaint.


Stage 2 review


As stated previously the stage 2 review looks at how the first review was handled, whether it addressed the issues of your complaint, fixed any shortfalls in our service, was clear in conveying the outcome of the review and was thorough and fair. 


Having reviewed our records I am satisfied the stage 1 reviewer had consulted the records and having done so was able to confirm to you that we had fully considered your complaint.


I concur with the reviewer’s conclusion that our remit in the context of safeguarding issues has been clearly explained to you and our response was appropriate and in line with our current policies and practice.  I also note you were again directed to further relevant information about our strategy in safeguarding cases to aid your understanding of our approach and remit.


The reviewer has explained that your complaint was about historic abuse and therefore, in this case our remit would be limited to looking at how the charity’s trustees are now discharging their duties.


We have acknowledged and apologised for any shortfall in the standard of service you received and explained that we did not consider the charity’s conversion to a CIO would have any impact on your case.  I also note that […]’s full contact details were provided in her communications with you, in particular her work and mobile telephone numbers and email address, you would have been free to contact […] by telephone if you had so wished.




In conclusion I am satisfied that the Commission has followed its policies and procedures when considering your concerns.  Furthermore, the Commission has clearly and adequately answered your concerns and explained the reasons for the conclusions reached in your case.


I hope that my review has gone some way to reassuring you that the Commission has considered your complaint seriously. There are however no further routes for you to take within the Commission for consideration of your complaint.

Should you remain dissatisfied with the service you have received, you may wish to approach the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

The PHSO considers certain complaints about the service provided by a range of bodies, including the Commission.  Further information is available from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP, telephone number 0345 015 4033 (


Yours sincerely




Information Rights and Complaints Manager

Charity Commission





Reply to Charity Commission’s Stage 2 decision, 22 June 2019

Dear [Stage 2 reviewer]

Your letter indicates that the stage 2 review process was in fact a “rubber stamping” of the stage 1 findings and it seems to me that it could only have been the work of minutes rather than the labour of four months, workload or no workload.

You have defaulted again to the argument that my complaint is solely about current safeguarding arrangements, in spite of my very detailed correspondence explaining that it is not. In fact, I find it difficult to believe that my online submission of 28 January or my letter of 25 February were read by you at all, given that hardly any of their specific concerns, entirely germane to a range of the Commission’s statutory responsibilities, have been addressed.

I now fully understand that you do not wish to engage with my real concerns and that the Ombudsman is now my only redress (much delayed by the Commission).

The conclusions I do draw from your response, given all the evidence I have put before you, include, amongst other things, that you find:

  • The Marist Fathers, in spite of their decades long concealment of sexual abuse, to be fit and proper persons to act as trustees of their charities and as trustees and governors of publicly funded schools and colleges.
  • That their deliberate concealment of sexual abuse did not amount to ‘misconduct or mismanagement’ of their charity.
  • That retaining the main architect of the cover-up, Fr Austin Horsley, as a charity trustee from 2014, when they were finally obliged, against their will, to disclose the abuse, until his death in 2018, was acceptable governance and good safeguarding practice.
  • That failing to disclose the sexual abuse for at least 20 years (1993-2014) was acceptable practice, demonstrating a proper duty of care, whilst the Marists were raising millions of pounds in funding from donors and legators [Note by DM, Sept 2020: much of this may be Marist personal income from pensions, salaries etc. Point re donors still stands however.*], most of whom would have assumed they were not financing an organisation committed to concealing the sexual abuse of a schoolboy and some of whom would have been vulnerable adults.
  • That the Marists warning me as recently as December 2018 not to disclose their actions without their consent is consistent with the Charity Commission’s regulatory framework and indicative of an acceptable safeguarding culture.

Please keep this email for your records. I do not expect a response as you have already explained that your work as you see it is complete.

Yours sincerely

Damian Murray

[* General donations to Marists in 2016 were £46k (2015, £52k). Extrapolated over 20 years, this would approach £1m, excluding legacies.]













“… therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them.”

Matthew 23:3-4

David Greenwood’s notes of IICSA hearing on Child Sexual Exploitation by Organised Networks

IICSA CSE oral hearing


21st of September 2020 – 2nd October 2020


Alexis Jay gives the introduction


Henrietta Hill, counsel to the inquiry introduces the core participant representatives.


The investigation will look at first whether exploitation has been prevented, whether ch second whether children are being protected and third whether perpetrators are being disrupted.


CSE is a form of sexual abuse. The child receives something as a result of doing something for others. Networks involve more than one other person exploiting a child. Trafficking to exploit children is included in the definition. This investigation will be thematic. It will look at the practice of authorities today. It has chosen six geographical areas and then a number of children’s cases within those areas. We need to look at the nature and scale and whether there is a hidden problem.


CS-A317 was exploited from the age of 14. Staff in children’s homes were aware that she was being given alcohol and having sex with grown men. Staff colluded with perpetrators. She was violently raped at the age of 12. Police said she had consented as she had text messages with the perpetrators on her phone. She was subsequently contacted by the national crime agency. The national crime agency recognised CSE and the perpetrators have been investigated, charged, prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment each. The first investigation was completely flawed and the police criminalised her rather than the perpetrators. In contrast she feels that the national crime agency team were very positive and sensitive to her needs but was disappointed that after the prosecution she was not so closely looked after.


CS-A372 was bullied at school and introduced to a male aged 30. He gave her gifts and required sex from her. The case was closed by social services. Police prosecuted the men but the charges were dropped. She was forced to have sex later with men also.


CS-A373 saw domestic violence at home, went missing and was taken in by a gang. She was raped. She told police that she had been raped and given cannabis. At the age of 13 she was hospitalised. Social services placed her in care and in different placements. She was moved out of the area between the ages of 14 and 16. She absconded with a man aged 26. She met another perpetrator who raped her but he was simply cautioned by police for underage sex. CS-A373 feels the police and social services had little or no empathy.


BBC file on four produced a programme called groomed, abused and put in prison. This featured a girl called Daisy from Rochdale who had been given drugs by men. The men were never arrested. She was arrested. She had been passed around for sex, became pregnant, had a termination and the police simply contact her to be a witness for another person in another trial.


Since 2015 CSE has been a national threat as declared by the government, causing police to be forced to spend more money on this threat. As at February 2020 more than 90 investigations into exploitation were ongoing.


The effects of abuse are long-lasting. The truth project has documented the problems include anxiety, depression, PTSD, suicide attempts, alcohol misuse, lack of trust, physical health implications, unexplained pregnancy and terminations. Prior to 2009 there was still reference to children caught in CSA being “child prostitutes”. Parents against child exploitation, formerly known as crop was founded in 1996 and recognised by then that children could be convicted of prostitution. Home Office research in 2004 recommended more prosecutions of men. Offences were created in the sexual offences act 2003 to protect children. There has been a growing recognition of the vulnerability of children between 2010 and 2016. Investigations in Telford, Oldham, Rochdale, Oxford and Peterborough have taken place. June 2013 saw the Home Office select home affairs select committee report into child exploitation. August 2014 saw the Alexis Jay report on the Rotherham scandal. October 2014 saw a report from Anne Coffey MP into CSE in Manchester. 2019 saw the introduction of the Home Office disruption toolkit and there have been other studies with the aim of educating and enhancing statutory authorities on how to deal with CSE.


The inquiry will look at themes which will be problem profiling and disruption, empathy and concern, risk assessment, missing children, male and disabled victims, partnership working and audits and improvement.


Do councils and police have up-to-date information on perpetrators in their area? Are police and social services wise to the danger of stereotyping the problem as Asian men and white girls? Is disruption effective?


Do children feel treated with empathy and respect? How are children treated by the system?


Are the risks of falling into CSE understood? Do templated tick box forms inhibit good risk assessment? Is there an Ince sufficient ability to use professional judgement?


70% of exploited children are originally classed as children missing from home. What is being done to recognise this? Are return home interviews carried out at the right time and is data collected well? Is the right data being collected? Are children in residential care being adequately protected? 8 percent of children in care are in unregulated placements. Many children are placed out of the area. Is there a recognition of male victims? Is there a recognition that some children have disabilities, often not visible? Is partnership working effective? Are audits being carried out properly and is the data gathered being fed back into the system to improve responses? Six geographical areas will be studied of the 172 Council areas and 43 police areas. The areas studied are Swansea, Tower Hamlets, Bristol, St Helens, Durham and Warwickshire. Opening addresses were delivered


Day two


CS-A12 was born in 1993. At age 7 her mother started to live with a new partner. This was okay at first but domestic violence started. Mum would drop the charges regularly. Mums mental health was affected and she attempted suicide, was diagnosed with psychosis and sectioned. Mum was also violent to A12. Social services were involved between the age of seven and 12. A12 feels mother was not supported enough or that she should have been removed.


A12 was eventually place in the children’s home she complains of not enough attention was paid to her. She was not given boundaries. She got a taste of going out and coming in late and repeated this behaviour. She was moved to a different home after three months which was situated in the worst area of the city. She was intimidated constantly by men out on the street outside the home. Almost all the girls in the home were exploited by males outside the home under the noses of staff. The homes she had to live in were in areas where gangs operated with knives, drugs and were committing sex crimes. A12 took three overdoses and self harmed. She was told by staff that she was attention seeking. She was in poor mental health, felt isolated and in hindsight feels that this pushed her towards her abusers. They made her feel like part of their family. There was no sympathy or hugs from staff. She was arrested multiple times for criminal damage at the home and felt it wasn’t safe. Her exploiters were the only ones who paid attention to her and gave her someone she could rely on.


She was often stopped by police in cars with older men and vodka. Police blamed her for causing breakdown in society and accused her of getting the men into trouble, calling her a child prostitute telling her that they had better things to do than to deal with her. Drivers and other men in cars were not questioned about her presence. On one occasion she was told that she had to wait outside in the middle of the night until 7 AM as staff would not allow her back into the children’s home whilst inebriated.


Care staff would speak to the men in the car’s would even way that the men. A12 admitted to having sex with men. Staff knew that she was being picked up on the road outside the home. She was threatened with being put into a secure unit and feels that the police missed many opportunities to arrest the men.


Staff were also whether she was having sexual relationship with a 17-year-old in the care home. She was going out to nightclubs from the age of 14. She was offered fake ID by bouncer and given ecstasy tablets. Spent a lot of time in one particular club. There were shootings in that area.


She was prosecuted at least 12 times, once for possession of a knife (the man exploiting her had actually possessed the knife). She was seen as a lost cause. Her daughter, born in 2009 was adopted because of A12’s involvement in exploitation. She was raped at age for age 15. She wrote reported this to staff at a refuge. The police were not called. Staff even helped pick out a Muslim style outfit to wear to an eid celebration hosted by one of her abusers.


There were many changes of social workers and five leaving care workers, 12 to 15 in total. At age 18 she stopped drinking and having contact with the abusers. She undertook cognitive behavioural therapy and stopped taking cocaine and alcohol.


She was approached three years later in 2012 to be a witness for another case. This prompted her to report her own experience to the police in 2013 with no response. She approached policea gain in August 2014 and eventually a trial took place in 2018 which took eight weeks. There was a mis-trial and then a second trial in February 2019. She gave evidence for a number of days in each of the trials. She found the experience horrible. One advocate was extremely aggressive and spoke to her like she was garbage. She had to go through it all again on the second trial there were 21 counts of rape against her. Her abusers were given a total of 302 years and will serve 132 1/2 years in total. She has spoken to other people and has prepared a report on her experiences and the experiences of 14 others in care in the area. She knows more than 50 others personally who have been through the same pattern through being in care.


Helen Beckett is and Sophie Hallett (both academics give evidence about data collection and definitions of CSE. Their conclusion is that victim blaming language is a barrier to young people talking about their experiences. They also conclude that risk assessments conflate risk and harm. They conclude that every child is at risk of CSE. They conclude that the hallmark of good practice is good communication with children. The well-being of children is to be the top priority.


Sheila Taylor, the head of the National working group based in Derby has worked CSE since 2005. She concludes that in consistency of approach around the UK makes it difficult to give a clear view on what works and what doesn’t work. She feels it is a postcode lottery. Successful areas tend to be driven by motivated individuals when those individuals leave effectiveness drops away.


Day three


John Pearce – Durham Council head of children’s services. Durham trains its staff on good use of language and avoiding victim blaming language. He agrees that concentrating on harm rather than risk would be a better approach to risk assessment. He agrees that risks are downgraded too quickly by social workers. His service operates a missing from home coordinator to ensure all return home interviews are carried out and are of high quality. He agrees that there are some gaps in data collection.


Michael Banks (Durham safeguarding children’s partnership) he agrees Durham is data rich but analysis poor. He agrees there is under recording of CSE in Durham. He agrees that audits have not been comprehensive in the past. His role is due to be replaced by an independent scrutineer. He believes that the safeguarding partnership in Durham is making changes which will benefit children in the future.


David Orford (Deputy Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary – a uniformed police officer with brown, thinning hair.


He agrees that data collection and analysis means the definitions of CSA and CSE makes it difficult to track trends in CSE. He agrees that the HM IC reporting to Durham found failings but emphasises Durham’s use of child abuse warning nortices in disruption. He agrees that use of language is important to get the best out of complainants he agrees that there are some deficiencies in this assessment but insists that Durham has improved its systems will now be mobile devices. This will deliver quick decisions. In 2019/20 921 missing persons were reported but only 111 missing person return home interviews were carried out. He emphasises the use of the Philomena protocol on combating CSE in residential settings.


Day four


Julie Thomas (Swansea Council) Swansea has adopted a document with guidance on alternative language to avoid victim blaming. She agrees it is difficult to find BAME social workers which can be important when responding to BAME children in CSE and getting the best evidence out of them and responding well. Swansea uses third sector organisations to help. She encourages the use of less victim blaming language. She agrees that the social services records examined are littered with unacceptable phrases such as ” this 13-year-old has had six sexual partners since the age of 11 years old” and “she is undertaking behaviour that is putting herself and family at risk of harm”. Mrs Thomas tends towards using management speak on expertise. There are a lot of acronyms, practice frameworks, collecting metrics, understanding lived experience, safety plans and practice standards. None of these explained in detail by her. There is little plain language from this witness.


One positive is the use of the sexual exploitation risk assessment form which allows practitioners to input their own views on what is happening in the child is background.


She confirms that Swansea avoids unregulated placements for 16 to 18-year-olds


Daniel Richards (south Wales police) – uniformed officer in late 40s shaved head.


There are no gang or CSE investigations currently ongoing in South Wales. There are  likely to be organised networks not yet discovered. Fewer reports of CSE are coming through to the police. It can be difficult to isolate cases of CSE from general exploitation such as county lines the police rely heavily on sharing information internally with partner agencies. South Wales police ensure that all recruits have training CSE advocates are also used to communicate with victims. Return home interviews are usually done by the police but if CSE is involved Barnardos are used to carry them out. More information gleaned from return home interviews could lead to good analysis of potential evidence and building up of patterns and evidence against perpetrators.


CS-A2 – is the mother of CSA1 who was groomed from the age of 11 1/2, missing school and sexually exploited, on drugs, mixing with adult males, been raped and the use of social media figured heavily. She complained of many late interventions by police and social services all in 2016 to 2017. Interventions were mostly ineffective. Procedures appear good but in practice they were not carried out. Risk assessment was late and was wrong. Police disruption was ineffective.


Day five


Nigel Minns (Warwickshire Council) – a non-descript besuited man


Warwickshire has a child centred approach avoiding victim blaming language yet many of the files produced to him demonstrate the use of outdated language. He acknowledges the system does not records CSE cases separately and accepts that the council gets risk assessment wrong. He blames shortage of foster carers and those specialised in dealing with teenagers and children with complex needs or disabilities. He says social workers find CSE work very difficult. He emphasises the ‘something’s not right” campaign in Warwickshire. He says that social workers in Warwickshire have an average of 17 to 18 cases and complexity varies.


Peter Hill (Warwickshire police) he is head of vulnerability and safeguarding in Warwickshire police. Police work collaboratively. He has a substantial team. He agrees that preventing CSE is very difficult due to getting best evidence interviews from children.


Day six


St Helens Council


Vicki McKenna (Catch-22) woman in 40s. Dark brown hair. Red blouse.


Catch-22 is a charity. They give their services to councils to look after missing persons. They also do training at schools and help children through the court process. Catch-22 collect data from return home interviews and intelligence is shared in the multi agency safeguarding hope each day. Catch-22 challenges victim blaming language. They also recognise that the ages of 16 to 18 are a very vulnerable age for children. Catch-22 other receive risk assessments from St Helens Council if the missing person is considered to be involved in CSE. Sometimes there is insufficient data to work adequately with that child. Part of Catch-22’s work is to build up trust with the child and parents numbers missing in St Helens a fairly stable at 700 per year. Catch-22 sees children within 72 hours of them returning home. There is a problem with lack of access to mental health services and she considers that not enough is being done to embed responses to CSE in the education system where children spend most of their time.


Jim levers (Helen St Helens local safeguarding children’s partnership – white hair, condescending manner, handkerchief in pocket


He agrees victim nlaming language is not appropriate and wants to avoid an Oxford, Rochdale or Rotherham situation in St Helens. He emphasises the pan Merseyside multiagency CSE protocol. St Helens operates a multi agency safeguarding hub with police, Council, health and third sector involved. He agrees that 84% of risk assessments were unsatisfactory in an audit in 2019. He does point out however that more return home interviews are done than previously but blames a lack of resources.


Ian David Critchley (Merseyside police) uniformed officer, very sharp.


He is an assistant chief constable of Merseyside police. He analyses the data provided well. Most perpetrators are white British. Most victims are white female. Most perpetrators are men. I operate a tool to track perpetrators. PCSOs are attached to each care home. There is a monthly central meeting he agrees they are not covering all perpetrators constantly but are learning every day. He agrees that the voice of the child is the most important thing he believes St Helens are much more rigourous than they were previously.


And evidence summary of Tower Hamlets cases is read out which demonstrates errors in risk assessments, case files being closed too early and some good examples of practice.


Richard Berwyn (Tower Hamlets Council) man in 60s. Smart. Smooth.


He explains the Tower Hamlets quantitative risk assessment form. He has a specialist child exploitation team which have regular meetings. They use the Home Office Home Office risk assessment toolkit a recent inspection showed 30% of cases were good, 20% were inadequate. They use an alternative way of categorising risk with levels one two and three. The top 20 CSE cases are discussed very regularly. Schools are encouraged to understand the risk assessments he agrees that it is better to discuss harm than to discuss risk.


Tower Hamlets have improved return home interviews. Ofsted have confirmed this improvement. Tower Hamlets try to keep looked after children within 20 miles of Tower Hamlets town Hall.


Sue Williams (met police) – curly hair brown


Hackney has criminal gangs but less CSE than Tower Hamlets. Online exploitation is the most common. Street CSE is also common, and then peer on peer exploitation is the least common type of sexual offending against children.


Timelines of children’s treatment by councils and police were read out.


Anne James (Bristol City Council)– woman in 50s. Short hair, spectacles and flowery blouse.


She is a qualified social worker and has been a senior management since 2011. She is now director of children and family services in Bristol. Bristol uses the CSE risk assessment toolkit designed to protect predict risk and harm. They aim to strengthen families early which reduces missing person episodes. This helps prevent problems rather than having to tackle them when it is too late. Bristol operates data tool which uses an algorithm based on risks and past date. It is reviewed regularly. It leads social workers and police to target cases.


Of the data collected to date of 400 children, 67% were white British. 59% were female 45% under the age of 15. They correlate with areas of deprivation. Some schools are more likely to be targeted by offenders than others. 99% 99 of the 400 most at risk are not in education or employment, their home address is in particular clusters, their age is similar and schools are similar. Their algorithm is around 80% accurate.


William White (Chief superintendent Avon and Somerset police – police officer in uniform. Man in 50s.


He has experience of sexual offences CSE. Police use data to profile offenders and risk most suspects are white European. Operation Brook in 2014 was a large investigation and used the resources similar to that of a murder investigation and has shaped the way they respond to CSE. They have moved on from a focus on prosecution to focus on disruption. Which provides the multi agency framework for responding to allegations of child abuse.


227,000 offences were recorded against children in 2019. The data collected gives trends HMIC say police are operating at capacity and this impedes best response to CSE. The recruitment of 20,000 police officers will help to solve the problem the Home Office’s definition is that CSE is able to take place where predators have access and believe they will be able to offend unchallenged.


No cultural ethnicity is likely to offend more than any other culture. The Home Office representative agrees that CSE is an under identified crime.


On disruption the Home Office are representative confirms that police have many powers to disrupt and emphasises the need to build trust with victims. Children working undercover are rare but they are sometimes allowed to work undercover by the law. A case in the Court of Appeal is currently going through. It is agreed that the licensing of taxis is a useful tool and ensuring that all taxi drivers have training on sspotting CSE should be built in. HMIC play a central role on maintaining consistent standards throughout police forces. All agree that third sector agencies have useful skills at communicating with victims. The Home Office representative agrees with the need to move away from a box ticking exercise on assessment of risk. Sources of funding can be departments of health, local government and PCC’s. No representatives comment on whether there should be a Minister for CSE.


Representatives from CQC, HMIC, OFSTED give evidence and state that there is often delay and drift by police and slow responses to children and families. Ofsted comment that third sector organisations are positive resources for communication with victims, police and local authorities. Widening the focus of county lines investigation can pick up CSE. The CQC representative emphasised the need is for GPs, A and E, ambulance services to be aware of the likelihood of CSE and there is a need to encourage a culture of awareness and prevention. HMIC again emphasise the fact that police are overstretched do not have enough resources. Ofsted emphasise varying practice in responses to missing persons.


Gregor or McGill (CPS) bald man with spectacles and a pinstripe suit. He is a director of the Crown prosecution service. The CPS computer does not hold data specifically on CSE. Child abuse warning notices are a useful tool in disruption. He denies a reluctance by the CPS to prosecute CSE. He says the problem is that the criminal justice system is adversarial. Cases can be strongly contested and cross-examination can be fierce, causing the system to be brutal. He supports the removal of convictions of children who committed offences whilst being exploited. The Crown Prosecution Service encourages prosecutors to challenge myths and stereotypes. The Crown Prosecution Service has built up specialisms throughout the austerity period.


Gill Gibbons (parents against child exploitation) woman in her 50s. Spectacles. Well spoken.


Her organisation supports parents and works with councils and police teams. She detects that language is changing but still hear subtle victim blaming language. She regularly has parents assumed to be the problem by local authorities and police. Parents expect honesty and respect but instead they tend to be seen as part of the problem. She wants to see parents seen as a vital partner in preventing CSE she thinks local authorities and police should look at the places children are going, the people they are mixing with and using their powers to disrupt abuse, working with families to identify all these factors.


She believes the social services child protection system has a problem at its heart which is that it is based on a model of abuse taking place in the home and parents being the problem. She explains the phenomenon of parents being threatened by perpetrators dedicated parent liaison offices are very effective in the seven areas in which PACE works. Involving parents in planning and managing risk reduces the length of missing episodes and can stop them altogether. It takes away from the child the feeling they are being punished. They are there to strengthen family rather than divide it.


Representatives from the Angelou Centre and Apna Haq centres these representatives conclude that women and girls have a lack of belief and trust. BAME families can through their culture instill feelings of shame and disrespect on victims of abuse. They point out institutional bias and discrimination causes an inability to for BAME victims to trust institutions. When a victim raises a cultural issue that is not understood well by police or social services police and social services tend to disengage rather than understanding the point of view. Adverse media coverage also creates a barrier.




Switalskis full written submissions (IICSA Lambeth Council Inquiry)



  1. These submissions are divided into the following sections:
  • Summary on the Extent of Child sexual Abuse in Lambeth;
  • The death of LA-B2;
  • Michael John Carroll and North Wales;
  • The position of children in care and recommendations;
  • Criminal Justice System;
  • Civil Justice System and the Lambeth Redress Scheme;
  • Conclusions and Recommendations for Training, Regulation and Mandatory Reporting.



The Extent of Child Sexual Abuse in Lambeth

  1. The Inquiry has heard detailed evidence for 4 weeks followed by short oral submissions. The details of what happened to our Core Participants (“CPs”) are referred to in the Thematic Gist Table produced by the Inquiry legal team after consultation with Core Participant legal representatives.  Its contents will not be repeated here, but below follows a summary of the conclusions that can be drawn from this and from the evidence before the Inquiry; and following that, written submissions on matters which came into focus during the Inquiry of particular concern to our CPs and included in each section, our recommendations for change.
  2. There can be no doubt that for decades the London Borough of Lambeth was beset by poor practice, corruption, racism, inadequate management and repeated failures to make the changes that were repeatedly highlighted as necessary. In this unhealthy environment the physical, psychological and sexual abuse that was already taking place, for example, to LA-A305 in the late 1950s/early 1960s was able to continue and then to flourish.


  1. From the time that Lambeth Council was created in 1965 the result was the widespread sexual abuse of Lambeth children over decades by multiple perpetrators, mostly males but sometimes female. Some older children also abused younger children, such as LA-A302, LA-A303, LA-A310 [Thematic Gist table E15], LA-A324, LA-A327 (who gave live evidence on 6 July 2020) and LA-A217.


  1. LA-A304, her brother and another boy were forced to engage in sexual activity with one another by the man who sexually and racially abused them [Thematic Gist table F35; H35].  In LA-A299’s case (who gave live evidence on 1 July 2020) his rape by an older boy was orchestrated by an adult who then watched him being raped.


  1. Even abuse which might at first appear to have been opportunistic (for example, the rape of LA-A305 in swimming pool changing area) can only have happened because the perpetrators had been informed of the availability of children to abuse and had been encouraged to do so. Even though the abuse was hidden from many at Lambeth it was coordinated, well-organised and so deeply embedded that it had become part of its culture.


  1. The abusive treatment of children began as soon as they entered care. Their abuse continued and their abusers became virtually untouchable.  The damage done to those who suffered child sexual abuse has been long lasting and extensive, undermining their very identities, whether because they were told that their parents did not want them, that they were nothing or because they were racially abused.


  1. The sexual abuse affected not only them, but also their families. Children were removed from their homes, often without any or adequate explanation of what was happening.  Many were separated from siblings, the only link they had to home, again, without any or adequate explanation.


  1. While there has been widespread reform in the procedures, rules and laws governing the care and protection of children, it is clear that even before they were abused, the most vulnerable in society were treated with total disregard for their mental and emotional health and well-being. What happened to the Core Participants we represent and many others, raises many questions about how Lambeth, as a corporate parent, and by logical extension, how the wider society of which it is a part, both as an institution and as a group of individuals responsible for the care of children, regarded such children.


  1. In summary, we say that the admitted failures by Lambeth in corporate parenting are, in part, a reflection of society as a whole. These children simply did not matter; they had no one to speak up for them. Their parents as a group did not have a collective voice: they were not members of an influential group who could necessarily use their votes to change the behaviour of those in their local government.  They were not powerful people who had the ability to lobby or influence their local politicians.  It is hardly surprising then, that the status of these “have nots” was: “out of sight, out of mind”.  Their experiences of abuse situation were exacerbated by:
  • Complex political structures;
  • A lack of clarity about the responsibilities of senior management and the chain of command;
  • A lack of any real interest by those who had the power and oversight over children’s services, with some exceptions;
  • Very poor social work, again, with some exceptions.


  1. Historically, senior officers have been willing to admit to failures and to take credit for proposed remedial action and policies which were supposed to protect children but such admissions meant little because for decades Lambeth failed to implement the changes that were so urgently required. Too often, after Social Services Inspectorate or an Inquiry, senior people moved on and little or nothing was done. There have been too many missed opportunities.


  1. The attitude to the children in Lambeth was also characterised by a failure of imagination and empathy: you do not need to know about paedophilia and grooming as concepts to consider children are or may be at risk. The Sexual Offences Act 1956 contained a variety of offences against children so such concepts were not new.  If anyone had cared to listen properly to these children at the time, for example, LA-A7 among (but there are many others) who complained to staff and police, Leslie Paul, whose prolific abuse included photographing and filming children could have been stopped from abusing more children.  By the time he started work at South Vale Children’s Home on 3 September 1979, s1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, which prohibited the taking of indecent photographs of children, had been in force for over a year and should have been fresh in the minds of those whose duty it was to look after children and protect them.  In this case, the Local Authority and the Metropolitan Police.  Instead, warning signs and complaints were ignored or not properly followed up.


  1. It is appreciated that there were many difficulties faced by those working for Lambeth, but those who have attended this Inquiry at SW and senior level and have said, by way of explanation or excuse that they were not aware of the risk or existence of sexual abuse insult those who suffered forms of abuse that were recognised by the law and punishable by sentences of imprisonment.


  1. Document OHY008782 is a Report to the London Boroughs Children’s Regional Planning Committee regarding a child sex abuse ring in Kilburn, North West London and part of the London Borough of Brent. The report dated 5 October 1989, was disclosed to CP legal representatives after the public hearing had concluded. It is not known whether any Lambeth Officers or elected members had seen this report, but it is reasonable to infer that this is likely.  The report was to be circulated because the purpose of the meeting was to explore issues of child sexual abuse and there was a recommendation to share information with other London Boroughs which had previously been made by Peter Bibby on 12 July 1989, following a MPS investigation into a paedophile ring that had started in 1987.


  1. Those we represent want Local Authorities to be held to account and in as detailed below, ask the Inquiry to recommend changes to the law and current regulatory provisions.












  1. LA-B2 died between 17 and 18 October 1975, unnecessarily, as a result of compression of her neck just a few days before her first Birthday. The circumstances of her death suggest strongly that it was the result of neglect. While no evidence has been obtained to suggest that LA-B2 was sexually abused, her death is relevant to the issues before the inquiry because it is evidence of the general state of neglect of children’s homes in Lambeth at the relevant time; and the bleak outlook for children who were unfortunate enough to be placed in them.


  1. Regrettably, LA-B2’s inquest file, which would have included relevant evidence such as witness statements and the Coroner’s report, no longer exists (please see references to DI Simon Morley’s statement below) but a significant amount of relevant information is known about her death, some of which Counsel to the Inquiry put to DI Morley when he gave evidence on 22 July 2020:
  • The identities of the staff on duty on the night/early morning LA-B2 died were known [INQ005873_05];
  • A summary is available of the actions of each member of staff who had been at work at the time; and
  • There was no justification for using the harness on LA-B2:
    • It is unlikely or at least unclear that the harness, apparently a Clippasafe harness was being used for its intended purpose (either on LA-B2 or on the other children over the age of 3 on whom it was used – apparently to prevent them getting to the fire escape stairs) [Exhibit LA A243 1, p31 (internal p2): report of final meeting of the Social Services Committee as part of its Internal Inquiry into LA-B2’s death, dated 9 December 1975];
    • LA-B2 was crying and it was felt better to place her in a bedroom on an upper floor with younger children from the age of 2 under the age of away from her sister and school age children as she might disturb them (even though the night of 17 to 18 October 1975 was a Friday/Saturday) [INQ005873_26];
    • Even though she was a child under the age of 1 but still mobile, she was placed in an upper bunk and harnessed to the bunk bed when the risk of her slipping out of the harness either partially and completely and falling or entangling herself in the harness was or should have been obvious;
    • LA-B2 was known to sleep on her stomach but was placed on her back when it was also known that she “sometimes tended to wake up again after being settled down” [INQ005873_27];
    • It was known by the member of staff who put LA-B2 to bed that if a child in a harness tried to lie on its stomach, it would be in difficulty by getting tangled up [INQ005873_40];
    • It was known that LA-B2 was or had been suffering from an upper respiratory tract infection (making it more likely she would become unsettled or wake during the night, even if Phenergan, a sedative, had been administered);
    • There was no or no adequate supervision: there were no night staff at the Home. It was said that there was always an officer sleeping within hearing of the nursery, but on the night of LA-B2’s death the person who slept closest to the nursery was off duty at 3 p.m. on 17 October and returned at 8.15 p.m. then slept with her door closed.  The member of staff on call slept downstairs on the floor below LA-B2 and could not hear the children.   No checks were made between 9pm and the following morning when she was found dead. [INQ005873_05]; [INQ005873_27]; and


  1. It was accepted by the Social Services Committee that:
  • the bunk bed and harness should not have been used;
  • neither the lower nor upper bunk of a bunk bed should ever be used on a child of LA-B2’s age;
  • a harness of this type should not be used on a child of this age, on a cot or on a bed [INQ005873_28].


  1. In his evidence to the Inquiry on 22 July 2020 DI Simon Morley agreed that there was clear evidence that a crime may have been committed and it should have been investigated as a crime by the police at the time [transcript p106-107].


  1. He agreed that it would be a reasonable starting point to say that if what happened to LA-B2 were to happen today, as well as an investigation into the acts and omissions of individuals, it would be appropriate given the appalling circumstances of LA-B2’s death, to investigate whether Lambeth, as a corporation, had committed corporate manslaughter. He then said that one would have to look at all of the details and the circumstances and that while this was his personal opinion, one would need to ask that question of a more senior and more experienced detective, possibly from one of our murder teams.


  1. DI Morey said he had not seen any of LA-B2’s files and could “get an opinion from one of our murder investigation teams, and I think that would be more benefit to the inquiry than me attempting to be helpful with my personal opinion and with my experience and my background.”


  1. DI Morley has provided a ninth witness statement to the Inquiry [MPS004574], dated 31 July 2020, in which he sets out the enquiries he made to obtain further information about LA-B2’s death. On behalf of the CPs we represent, we are grateful for DI Morley’s efforts. He found that, unfortunately, the Coroner’s file was held for 15 years before being destroyed (in 1990) and states that that the Metropolitan Police Service does not retain Coroners’ files so that details of the identities of the police officers involved at the time and copies of any witness statements taken no longer exist.


  1. It is plain that information relating to child abuse, including child sexual abuse continues to emerge years after the events themselves took place. To find that potentially relevant evidence no longer exists because it has been destroyed is highly unsatisfactory, although it is acknowledged that this situation might not arise today.[1]


  1. Given that relevant original documents have been destroyed, DI Morley also indicated that without access to the relevant witness statements he is unable to say what information they contained, what other steps, if any, police took in investigating LA- B2’s death and therefore what evidence was available to the police in 1975. The MPS do not retain copies of Coroner’s files. As a result, he is unable as a result to comment on the quality of the police investigation at that time: witness statement MPS004574, page 13, para. 32.


  1. DI Morley acknowledged that if a death such as LA-B2’s death occurred today in a children’s home, he would expect the first police officers on the scene to secure it and arrange for the attendance of a Detective Sergeant or Inspector, who would in turn request the attendance of the Homicide Assessment Team. He commented that it is not unusual for the death of a young child to be disguised by those responsible as an accident and the assessment and investigation of such tragic incidents requires specialist expertise and experience [DI Morley’s 9th witness statement MPS004574 p13, para. 34(a)]. While thankfully rare, unexplained or suspicious deaths of children in circumstances which may not at first appear to be so, do occur.  There is a recent example in which police failed to take the steps that DI Morley suggested were necessary would expect: London Borough of Southwark v US, also known as Re L (A Child) [2017] EWHC 3707.  This was a case in which a child was discovered dead in her bedroom in the family home, having died from compression of the neck.  The police failed to treat the scene as a crime scene and the lead investigating officer closed his mind to the idea that her death could have been the result of a homicide.


  1. What happened to LA-B2 and indeed, the Re L case, suggest that even today, whenever a child dies, those responsible for investigating the cause of such a death must vigilant and keep their minds open to all possibilities, so that a full and thorough investigation can take place. Sadly, it does not appear that this was the case for LA-B2 and the jury’s open verdict is likely to have been a reflection of their concern about this.


  1. DI Morley is unable to provide a definitive answer to the question of whether the circumstances of LA-B2’s death provide grounds to investigate Lambeth Council on suspicion of corporate manslaughter, as it would depend upon the evidence available. He states that he would be happy to refer this matter to the Metropolitan Police Services Specialist Casework Investigations Team for further consideration and examination, should further information about the circumstances of LA-B2’s twos death be provided to him.
  2. Although DI Morley’s willingness to assist is appreciated, those who would wish LA-B2’s death to be investigated are left in an impossible position: without relevant evidence the police are apparently unable to comment or take matters further; but without further steps being taken by those with the ability to investigate such matters it is unlikely that it will be possible to obtain such evidence.


  1. The Metropolitan Police are therefore invited to reconsider the file exhibited to LA-A243’s statement, which contains details of the identities of the staff who were working at the time and to check whether there is any record of any investigation, perhaps stored or archived on microfilm. Efforts should be made to trace such people to see whether they are still alive and whether they have relevant evidence to give before any conclusions are drawn about the availability of relevant evidence and the MPS has the means and the ability to make such enquiries. Without such steps being taken, the injustice of LA-B2’s death will continue. The available information suggests that there is a clear case to answer for gross negligence manslaughter and every reasonable effort should be made to carry out a thorough investigation.









  1. Michael Carroll abused children over many years. The Inquiry has heard detailed evidence of how this was able to happen and about his contact with political figures such as Lord Paul Boateng.


  1. We submit that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any named political figure has been involved In child abuse, however the very fact that members of the political class and/or the establishment and/or the management of Lambeth Council would only have served to emphasise to Carroll’s victims, that he was untouchable and unaccountable.


  1. It is clear that Michael Carroll was able to perpetrate abuse for several reasons:
  • Lambeth had no proper system in place for verifying declarations about the lack of any relevant previous convictions so it failed to uncover his deception in obtaining employment when he’d failed to disclose his Schedule 1 offence against a child; that was left to another LA, Croydon Council;
  • He made himself indispensable and appears to have had a reputation for working with challenging children, becoming a “go to” man in Lambeth. In short, he made himself indispensable.
  • He was one of several people who were utterly corrupt and most likely corrupted others.
  1. When concerns were raised about him, for example, by Anna Tapsell. This stifled the ability of others to speak out.


  1. Carroll was able to run Angell Road CH like a private fiefdom and in effect had free reign to abuse children. Even though senior management at the Council such as Robin Osmond visited the home, the children who lived at Angell Road were at that time beyond help and assistance.
  2. Thus, Carroll was easily able to groom and then attempt to care for (by either adopting or fostering) siblings LA-A181 and LA-A109 and to groom their father in the early 1980s. [LA-A109 witness statement, INQ005956, para 106-110; Thematic gist table F29]. If Lambeth had had an effective system to discover previous convictions in place, it would have known about this.  Given that Lambeth negligently continued to allow Carroll to have contact with children when he attempted to foster two brothers in 1986, it is not possible to  say that contact between Carroll and LA-A181 and LA-A109 would have ceased if his conviction had been discovered earlier, but he could have been prevented from grooming and abusing them.


  1. We submit that the social workers involved with LA-A181 and LA-A109’s family failed to consider whether it was appropriate for Carroll, who signed a written agreement indicating that he would be involved in supporting the family, to continue his involvement with the family.


  1. From document LAM030357, a Lambeth Officers Report regarding LA-!109 and LA-A181 dated 12 May 1981, disclosed to CPs on 21 August 2020, it is clear that the children, who were living at Highland Road Children’s Home, continued to visit Carroll, who had started work at Angell Road Children’s Home in January of the same year.


  1. It is at the very least surprising and concerning that the social workers involved, Simon French (deceased) and Chris Hussell, did not consider that a conflict of interest might arise between him supporting a family and at the same time working in a role that required him to safeguard and care for children. Questions should have been asked about the arrangement but instead, the proposed arrangement was met with bind acceptance by Lambeth staff.


  1. Once Michael Carroll’s conviction had been discovered and Lambeth had been notified of it, those at a senior level were either unable or unwilling to appreciate the significance of his offence and of his dishonesty; and the motivation for withholding such information. It is now known that the person presenting Carroll’s case on behalf of Lambeth was himself involved in dishonesty, but that does not explain why senior managers did not take even rudimentary steps to safeguard and check on children with whom Carroll was or had been in contact.


  1. Even after this was discovered in April 1986, Lambeth failed to take appropriate action at his disciplinary hearing and shockingly, certain people at Lambeth continued to support his application to foster.


  1. There was an unquestioning “carte blanche” acceptance of Carroll’s version of events of “horseplay” explanation: minutes of the SSI report, CQC000298 referred to in evidence by David Pope on 8 July 2020 [transcript p47].


  1. The approach of Lambeth contrasts to that of the London Borough of Wandsworth, which concluded that the Carrolls were not appropriate people to be foster parents and was concerned that Lambeth had allowed the children in question to effectively live with or stay with the Carrolls for long periods of time as their social uncle and aunt. [Transcript 8 July p57].


  1. Instead, the approach of those in power at Lambeth lacked rigour, (David Pope) and focused on the result it wanted to achieve (the Senior Children’s Homes Officer Mr Thomas): to keep Carroll employed and as far as some were concerned, to allow him to foster the children in question, rather than on the evidence before it. Overall, this was a superficial, corrupt (by Thomas) and “clubby”, “we’re all in this together” approach to the investigation and disciplinary process. No independent advice was sought and no effective scrutiny of the evidence took place.  Mr Pope, who chaired the disciplinary process, did not even call for Carrol’s personnel file.  The result was a foregone conclusion: Lambeth failed to dismiss Carroll and chose instead to only impose a final warning.


  1. The result was that Carroll was not dismissed for another 5 years until 31 August 1991, during which time he was in a position to continue to sexually abuse children.


  1. All of these matters are evidence of a lack of imagination, poor judgment, a somewhat arrogant attitude and amount to a shocking dereliction of duty.


  1. The Inquiry is by now aware of the consequences of such attitudes and failures in childcare. Much remains as yet, unknown but CPs have given evidence of what was, in effect, over years, commercialised child abuse that included the taking of photographs and the filming of abuse (Leslie Paul among others). Further, the networks spread much further than London and the South East.


The North Wales Connection

  1. On 23 July 2020 Helen Kenward of CHILE confirmed in her oral evidence that Carroll was linked to other known paedophiles around the country, who were also involved in the residential care of children [transcript 23 July 2020 p95]. Therefore, it is unlikely to be a coincidence that some children were treated as chattels and sent to homes in North Wales for the purpose of sexually abusing them or at least in the knowledge that this is what would happen. Serious child sexual abuse was already taking place there, as is known from the Waterhouse Inquiry.


  1. Ms Kenward also said in evidence that: “Carroll was a charismatic person who could be either dominant and bullying or seductive and charming. He was well known in Lambeth, but he was also known on the residential scene, and he was a member of the Residential Care Association.  Now, that brought him into contact with a whole range of people, and I know, for instance, that people like Frank Beck were part of that organisation. Because of my previous experience in other investigations — Nottingham, Cleveland, and so on — I knew that that was a meeting place for many people, but also for paedophiles.” [transcript p95].


  1. Brothers LA-A109 and LA-A181 were taken on at least one trip to North Wales by John Carroll. LA-A181 was abused there and he suspects LA-A109 was too, although LA-A109 does not mention this [Thematic Gist Table F8; witness statement of LA-A181, INQ005683 paras 23 onwards].


  1. LA-A311 was sent to live in Ynys Fechan Hall in Gwynedd, a private children’s home in North Wales where he was subjected to excessive physical punishment/physical abuse; sub-standard food; poor supervision by staff, who drank alcohol and held parties; and used as in effect, unpaid slave labour under the guise of “work experience”. This was prioritised over very limited education from unqualified care home staff or associated of staff which took place only part time and consisted of copying things out from a blackboard


  1. LA-A311 witnessed his roommate being sexually abused in bed by a man in LA-A311’s presence and on another occasion LA-A311 was sexually abused by the same man [Thematic Gist Table E14, F14, H14, J14; witness statement INQ005591, paras 35-39].


  1. At the time Carroll was working, the oversight of placement of Lambeth children in private and voluntary accommodation was lamentably weak to non-existent. On 3 July 2020 transcript [transcript p84] Mr Osmond, the former Director of Social Services, was referred to paragraph 1 of LAM028400_3, a Placement Officer’s Report dated 17 November 1988 in which a Mr Byron said that:

Monitoring and control systems …” (of children being placed in private and voluntary accommodation)  “… simply did not exist. This state of affairs 3 did not result overnight but would appear to be the result of years of neglect and inefficiency.”


  1. Mr Osmond admitted he was not aware that there was ineffective monitoring of placements at of private or voluntary organisations but did not take responsibility for this and instead sought to place responsibility on Lambeth social workers (transcript pp85-86). Clearly, those in senior management roles at the Council, who should have been aware of the situation, were not. Nor did they at that time check that there was an effective system for monitoring in operation and Mr Osmond’s response to the questions about this demonstrate that not only was there a lack of oversight, but a lack of interest in such matters.


  1. Such failures had a direct effect on the CP’s we represent and undoubtedly on many others.
























Children on the Cusp of Going into Care

  1. The evidence before the Inquiry shows that children in Lambeth were at risk as a result of poor social work practice and poor management both before, during and after they were in care.


  1. In Counsel to the Inquiry Ms Langdale QC’s opening on 29 June 2020 she referred to a Social Services Inspectorate report, the inspection of Child Protection and Planning and Decision Making for Looked After Children in May to June 2000 (LAM029179), [transcript pp99-100].


  1. The overall impression was of a Children and Families Division struggling under considerable and relentless pressure. In many areas, basic work systems were functioning poorly or had collapsed. This led to inefficient, fragmented and inconsistent work practices. The SSI noted:

We were particularly concerned about potentially large numbers of children who had not properly been regarded as looked after. They had not been allocated a social worker, were not placed with approved carers and had none of the protection afforded by visiting, monitoring or statutory reviews. Urgent action was needed to trace these children and secure their safety.”

Furthermore, significant numbers of looked-after children and those on the Child Protection Register did not have social workers.


  1. In her evidence to the Inquiry on 21 July 2020, Annie Hudson, the now former Strategic Director of Children’s Services at Lambeth, acknowledged that children who were on the cusp of going into care and living with their families in high risk situations were not adequately protected by Lambeth.


  1. Children on the Child Protection Register were not allocated a social worker. Families that should have received intervention and support to see if it was possible to avoid children being taken into care, did not do so and as a result, children were left in potentially dangerous situations [transcript 21/07/2020 p4]. Such risks could have been exacerbated by because parents who presented a risk could have been encouraged by the lack of LA action to think that whatever they did, the LA would not interfere.  With no monitoring and no social work visits, children were exposed to unacceptably high risks.


  1. Instead, a crisis would occur and a child would be taken immediately into care through the court process or as a voluntary reception into care now pursuant to under section 20 of the Children Act, which provides for children to be received into LA care, with the parent or parents having agreed to delegate parental responsibility without the LA sharing parental responsibility with the parents. This is likely to have been upsetting and traumatic for the children concerned.


  1. Later in her evidence Ms Hudson was referred to LAM029179 (the SSI from May to June 2000) which raised concerns about potentially large numbers of “hidden” looked after children who had not been allocated a social worker and had been placed with friends or family on an informal basis and who were supported by payments under section 17 of the 1989 Act or boarding out payments under Regulation 11 of the Foster Placement Children Regulations. No checks were made on their carers, so that the poor social work practice of the 1980s and 1990s appeared to be continuing a decade later. Lambeth was therefore repeatedly in breach of the statutory duties it owed to children under Section 1(1) the Child Care Act 1980 (repealed) and Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, to safeguard and/or promote their welfare.


  1. Today, there is evidence that similar problems continue to arise with the (mis)use of section 20, denying the child a voice because, without public law proceedings having been issued, no statutory reviews take place, no Child’s Guardian is be appointed and decisions about a child’s future are delayed. If placed by local authorities under informal arrangements which have not been assessed children continue to be at risk because of a lack of social worker intervention and support.  The flowing cases provide some examples:


  1. Medway Council v M, T (by her Children’s Guardian) [2015] 10 WLUK 311, 13 October 2015 (judgment included with supplementary materials): 5 year old child placed in emergency foster care when her mother was detained in hospital with a serious mental order and there was no one else to care for her. The local authority failed to consider the mother’s capacity or the child’s legal status; It delayed involving the court (failing to issue proceedings for 2 years); did not explore permanence and had allowed the case to drift; it had neglected parental contact; it had been advised of the need to take legal proceedings but did not do so and therefore had no lawful basis on which to accommodate the daughter without an order under the 1989 Act.


  1. The local authority had displayed a “shocking” misunderstanding of the law and the limits on the exercise of its power, compounded by an arrogant and ignorant disregard for the advice provided by the looked after children review process. Damages was sought and paid for breaches of both the mother and child’s ECHR Article 6 and 8 rights to a fair trial and for a private and family life respectively.


  1. Kent CC v M [2016] EWFC 28: the local authority had breached the child’s Art.6 and 8 rights when it: failed to properly assess her for 3 years and 4 months; failed, for the same period, to implement a care plan that met her needs, including ensuring that there were sufficient procedures in place to give effect to the recommendations of the Looked After Reviews; failed to provide her with a proper opportunity to secure a suitable long-term placement and a settled and secure home life; failed to issue proceedings in a timely manner from March 2012 to November 2015, depriving her of the protection afforded by the 1989 Act and of access to the court. Care proceedings would have helped significantly to provide the stability and security that the child so clearly needed. She would have had the benefit of a Children’s Guardian and a legal representative to give her an effective voice regarding the local authority’s failures. The issue of proceedings would also have enabled the local authority to share parental responsibility with the child’s mother.  Harm had been caused to the child by the lack of security and stability any of her placements (other than her most recent one) were able to offer her. The evidence showed that she was acutely aware that her mother could remove her at any time. The delays by the local authority in taking the necessary steps that its own decisions provided for had had a negative effect on the child’s emotional health and development and contributed to multiple breakdowns of foster placements.


  1. Herefordshire Council v AB [2018] EWFC 10: the local authority failures were described as “egregious”. There had been several occasions when care proceedings could have been issued but were not, and where legal advice should have been sought and was not.  There was no clear explanation for many of these decisions and there had been “complete inertia” which was “inexplicable”. The teenage mother had been side-lined from her child’s life.  She had needed the greatest possible advice, support and consideration, which she had not been given (paragraph 54).


  1. The Supreme Court has recently found it necessary to set out the principles governing the use of Section 20 after another case of its misuse, this time in the London Borough of Hackney Williams & Anor v London Borough of Hackney [2018] UKSC 37.
  2. Worcestershire CC v AA (A Child) [2019] EWHC 1855 (Fam) is a further example that came after and cites The local authority had serially and seriously failed to meet the child’s needs over a very prolonged period of time. The case had caused the local authority to undertake a root and branch review of its practices and procedures for the benefit of the children and young people whom it would be looking after in the future.  The failure to:
  • provide the child with therapeutic support;
  • provide adequate or effective support to his foster carers;
  • provide a stable and clear plan for his care, especially to ensure a responsible person or body had effective parental responsibility for him;
  • institute public law proceedings in respect of him and to provide him with the protection of a judge-led process and the protection of a voice via a children’s guardian;

was egregious in the extreme.


  1. Although in living with committed and nurturing foster carers, the child had been left adrift in the care system. There was no consistent planning for him through a succession of 22 social workers. His future settled and stable care should have been arranged and approved many years ago. There was no excuse for that not being done. He was failed by the local authority. A separate claim had been made on the child’s behalf seeking damages for breaches of his human rights for which the local authority had admitted liability.


  1. It is acknowledged that there is high quality social work and management taking place, that there have been vast improvements in children’s services and that practitioners have to operate in accordance with local conditions and under financial constraints. Worryingly, all too often, children continue to be let down and to suffer harm as a result of poor social work, informal arrangements and the misuse of Section 20, exposing them to risks and leaving them to drift at the edges of the care system without a voice. The fact that it is often left to the courts to deal with the consequences of these problems, whether in individual care proceedings and/or in civil proceedings for personal injury or under the Human Rights Act 1998 is far from satisfactory.













Children in Care

  1. The Inquiry has heard extensive evidence about the huge disadvantages suffered by children in the care of Lambeth, including the CPs we represent. Their evidence will not be repeated here, a representative sample having been included in the thematic gist table and reference having been made to their experiences in the introduction.


  1. Core Participants have been invited to comment on the legal remedies available to children in care and in particular whether and how the voice of a child already admitted into care may be heard within legal proceedings in the event of the child’s disagreement with the corporate parent on an issue of real concern to the child.


  1. Core Participants have been referred by Solicitors to the Inquiry to the comments made by Baroness Stedman-Scott when she tabled an amendment to the Child and Families Bill, seeking to appeal restrictions to Section 8 order children in care:
  2. Section 8 orders such as contact, prohibited steps and specific issue orders enable children to prevent their parents taking actions that are against their best interests. If a parent attempts to prevent a child seeing a family member or tries to move the child away from their home, the child may, through their solicitor and if that legal representative considers there to be sufficient grounds, ask a court to make a Section 8 order. Though rarely exercised or indeed necessary, the right to do this is a crucial protection for children in difficult situations.” [Hansard HL, Children and Families Bill, Vol 748, col 142, 14 October 2013].[2]


  1. Ultimately the proposed amendment was withdrawn, possibly because Baroness Stedman-Scott was persuaded by Lord Nash, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) that to allow a child in care to apply for a Section 8 order would cut across the scheme of the Children Act and the local authorities’ duties towards and responsibilities for children.


  1. If care proceedings have not been finalised and the child is subject to an interim care order, the Children’s Guardian can voice any concerns that the child has, including those about the care plan and where he or she should live. In the event that the child’s views differ from her Children’s Guardian, as long as the child is competent to instruct a solicitor, that child may be represented by and instruct her own solicitor.


  1. Whether or not look final care order has been made it is clear that a child is prevented by section 9(1) one of the Children Act 1989 from applying for a prohibited steps or specific issue order. While this is rationalised as an avoidance of cutting across the local authorities’ responsibilities, a local authority is not fulfilling its responsibilities properly, such an apparent lacuna must raise concerns.


  1. There are potentially, other options for a child in care to raise issues of concern, but in a limited and indirect way.


  1. Section 9(3) of the 1989 Act provides that:

“A person who is, or was at any time within the last six months, a local authority foster parent of a child may not apply for leave to apply for a section 8 order with respect to the child unless—

  • he has the consent of the authority;
  • he is a relative of the child; or
  • the child has lived with him for at least one yearpreceding the application.


  1. A foster carer who fulfils one of the subsection 3 criteria can apply for leave to make a Section 8 order application, but this will only give voice to the child’s concerns if the individual foster carer is able and willing to take such a step. This will be difficult if for example, if the child’s interests or views conflict with those of the foster carer or if the local authority, which will continue to hold parental responsibility, has advised the foster carer against taking such a step, particularly if it takes the view that the nature an application conflicts with the care plan for the child.


  1. Older case law from the Family Division of the High Court suggests that a child can obtain a Section 8 order for contact with siblings because such an order would be an order “with respect to” the child’s siblings rather than in respect of the child in care and would not therefore fall foul of section 9(1): Re F (Contact: Child in Care) 1995 1 FLR 510, FD. In reality, a child in care seeking such an order is likely to face obstacles.  In the Re F case the application was made on behalf of the child, K, by the Guardian ad Litem (the correct nomenclature at that time) at final hearing of the care proceedings, relying on Section 34(2) of the Children Act 1989, which provides for an application for contact to be made by the local authority or by the child for contact between that child and any named person.   The siblings of K were not in care and the parents wanted nothing more to do with K and objected to contact.  They appealed the order successfully, the court finding that neither a person named in such an order (or the person who was living with and caring for them if the named person was a child) was obliged to have or permit the contact provided for.


  1. The exception to this would be if it was the local authority applying for a s.34(2) order; then, the court’s jurisdiction should only be used where the local authority was adopting an inappropriate stance in respect of contact between the child in care and another person. The compulsory effect of a s.34(2) order, providing for the contact which was to be allowed between the child in care and the named person, attached only to the local authority.


  1. The court also found that there was no need for a s.34(2) order requiring the local authority to permit contact between K and her siblings, as the local authority had a duty to promote contact. The court would not make an otiose order.


  1. Furthermore, whilst the child making such an application would be a party, she would not be the subject of the proceedings and so the welfare principle, requiring the court to consider the best interests of such a child, would not apply to the child applicant. Thus, if the court did not consider that contact with the applicant child, was in the subject child’s best interests, no order would be made.


The Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

  1. As part of its general jurisdiction as a court of superior record and as a trustee of the Crown’s duty to protect all of its subjects, in certain circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court may be used to supplement or fill gaps in statutory provisions where this is necessary in the interests of society but should not be exercised in a manner which cuts across the statutory scheme: the Family Court Practice commentary on Re B (A Child) (Habitual Residence: Inherent Jurisdiction) [2016] UKSC 4.


  1. The High Court is prohibited by Section 100(2)(c) of the 1989 Act from making a child who is the subject of a care order a ward of court (vesting custody and control of the child in the Court) however, the duty of the Court under its inherent jurisdiction is to ensure that the child who is the subject of proceedings is protected and taken care of. In these limited and generally more extreme circumstances the Court may in exercising its inherent jurisdiction make any order or determine any issue in respect of a child unless limited by case law or statute. Such proceedings should not be commenced unless it is clear that the issues concerning the child cannot be resolved under the Children Act 1989: Practice Direction 12D, paragraph 1.1.


  1. As well as all of the orders that can be made in family proceedings the court may make a wide range of injunctions for the protection of a child: PD12 para. 1.2. Whilst the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for an application for an injunction to be made in relation to or by a child in care are likely to be very limited, an example can be found in Coventry CC v O (Adoption) [2011] 2 FLR 936, CA when the Court of Appeal upheld, in principle, a decision to grant an injunction, pending the final hearing, restraining a local authority from removing children from a placement with foster carers who had given notice of their intention to adopt the children (although the appeal by the local authority against the granting of the injunction was allowed on another ground).


  1. This option for the child’s voice to be heard is potentially useful, but in practical terms is likely to be of limited application: an application for an injunction would risk cutting across the statutory scheme under the Children Act and unless the behaviour of the local authority was egregious and harmful, the prospects of obtaining an injunction are unlikely to be high.


Independent Reviewing Officers

  1. Once a final care order is made and the Child’s Guardian no longer has a role to play, the Independent Reviewing Officer (“IRO”), who will have been appointed as soon as the child became subject to an interim care order, will have a continuing duty to review and monitor the child’s case on an ongoing basis and to ensure that the child’s voice is heard.[3] This does not always happen. There has been criticism of IRO’s in the case law and by the judiciary on the basis that they have not always fulfilled their functions and have not had sufficient training to appreciate the importance of the proper legal order being in force, nor the potential importance of contact to children in long term foster care: A and S v Lancashire County Council [2012] EWHC 1689 (Fam);


  1. IROs provide information to children in care about their role and responsibilities, including information about advocacy support, which is not solely for the purpose of complaints but should also ensure the child has a voice.[4]


  1. A serious case review in 2017 concerning the Croydon Safeguarding Children’s Board concluded that Over the years, a narrow focus on a handful of performance indicators has had a significant impact on the LAC (looked after children) Review process and resulted in diluting the core functions of the IRO in the life of the child. As a result, the potential for IROs to make a significant contribution to children’s care plans, and to service wide quality assurance and development, has not been sufficiently realised: Serious Case Review, “Claire”, Full Overview Report, Bridget Griffin, Croydon Safeguarding Children Board, 2017, pp60-64.


  1. Section 23ZB of the Children Act 1989 provides for local authorities to appoint Independent Visitors for a child where it would to be in the best interest of the child and where there has been infrequent communication between the child and their parent or the child has not been visited for a year.  Although an Independent Visitor is not a substitute for an advocate or an IRO, such a person can provide friendship, support and advice. Access to an independent person is something several of our Core Participants have recommended. Ideally such Visitors should be readily available to children given that IROs have not consistently been able to fulfil  their duties to children in care.


  1. At the time Baroness Stedman-Scott raised her concerns she also referred to the possibility of an application for judicial review, although there may be practical barriers to this due to the costs and complexities involved.


  1. A further possibility would be for the child to issue stand-alone proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of his or her Article 8 rights to a private and family life, subject to obtaining the assistance of a litigation friend (required for minors under the Civil Procedure Rules, in contrast to family proceedings, in which “Gillick competent” children can instruct a solicitor) and of course, subject to obtaining public funding.


  1. It is clear that children in care who wish to have a voice in legal proceedings face many difficulties.


  1. From the limited exploration of the issues set out above, it is submitted that children care face difficulties in being able to effectively voice their concerns in legal proceedings even if, when local authority is about to cease to looking after a child, the IRO must ensure that, having regard to the child’s age and understanding, the child has been informed of the steps he or she may take under the 1989 Act and in particular of the right to apply, with leave, for a Section 8 order and, where the child is in the care of the responsible authority, to apply for the discharge of the care order.[5]



Leaving Care


  1. The CPs who suffered childhood sexual abuse while in care faced difficulties after leaving the care system. Many were unsupported and left alone to manage day to day living arrangements, negotiating the benefits system; finding work; managing emotional and mental health problems as a result of their traumatic and/or neglectful experiences and managing substance misuse.


  1. Care leavers are now better supported, and there are support organisations to assist and support care leavers, but the support offered by local authorities is not necessarily always effective.


  1. In September 2017 Barnardo’s published Neglected Minds, a report which considered the mental health needs of care leavers and what could be done to better support them. The Report found that 46% of the Barnardo’s care leaver cases which were reviewed as part of the research involved young people who in the opinion of the personal adviser had mental health needs; 1 in 4 of the case files involved a young person who had faced a mental health crisis since leaving care; 65% of young people whom workers identified as having mental health needs were not currently receiving any statutory service.


  1. Adverse childhood experiences such as abuse, neglect, or witnessing domestic violence can all impact on a child’s developing brain and statistics show this results in much higher levels of mental health problems in this group than in the general population. 45% of looked after children (and 72% in residential care) have a mental health disorder – compared to 1 in 10 in the general population; and looked after children and care leavers are between four and five times more likely to attempt suicide in adulthood4. Despite these worrying statistics, changes specifically aimed at improving the mental health of looked after children have been slow to materialise.


  1. The report also found that despite the fact that the Government had issued statutory guidance aimed at promoting the health and well-being of looked-after children, evidence continues to suggest that assessment of the mental health needs of looked after children is patchy:


  1. In a pilot study carried between 2017 and 2018 by Dr Claire Baker, Head of theBright Spots Programme at Coram Voice, she specialises in research focused on the experiences and outcomes for young people in and leaving care. found that some struggled financially; some felt lonely.  A third of care leavers did not feel their accommodation was right for them, yet official government statistics suggested that 84% were in suitable accommodation:


  1. Since this time the government has announced a further initiative: a Care Leaver Covenant Board, comprised of Secretaries of State from across relevant government departments who will meet three times a year to address the key barriers facing young care leavers. The Care Leaver Covenant, funded by the Department of Education, tackles the disadvantages that young people aged 16-25 face when leaving care and helps them to live independently as they adjust to independent life as adults: finding a suitable, safe place to live, supporting them to remain in education, employment or training, and helping them access appropriate healthcare. It will also look at how to support councils to employ adolescent mental health workers in every leaving care team in the country:


  1. What help will be offered to access appropriate health care and what is meant by looking at how to support councils to employ adolescent mental health workers in t clear.


  1. On 9 July 2020 Lord Herman Ouseley was asked about whether the restrictions on children set out in S9 should be removed and said:

You have to have some statutory recognition that if there is a clear belief that children who are in care are almost second-class citizens, in that they have no right of expressing themselves, that that right should have provided to them so that it can be, with advocacy, expressed in a way that reflects their feelings, their experiences, their worries and concerns, in a manner that then can be addressed by those who make decisions, and continue to make decisions, which may have an adverse impact continuing on the lives of those children.” [Transcript p48]


  1. In order for children to have better outcomes after being in care, they need to be able to rely on local authorities to fulfil their duties towards them to a high standard. Regrettably, this was not and is not always the case. We submit that the only way to ensure that local authorities meet the high standards of care that children in their care deserve, then such standards should be enforceable by an overarching body with the power to compel action and impose sanctions for non-compliance.
















  1. The criminal justice system is a very different to what it once was. Much has been done to improve the environment in which children give evidence and the multi-disciplinary and child-centred approach, including the suggestion that psychologists could conduct ABE interviews pioneered by the Lighthouse is very welcome, but for adult survivors, there continue to be real difficulties,  The system suffers from underfunding and the CPS statistics published on 30 August 2020 on rape prosecutions does not give cause for optimism that the Criminal Justice system is working well for victims/survivors of sexual.


  1. After the close of the evidence, on 6 August, the CPs were provided with a letter dated 24 July 2020 and accompanying documents, which had previously been sent to the Inquiry. In the letter the CWJ expressed concern that CPS Gregor McGill’s evidence to the Inquiry on 10 July 2020 in respect of the current CPS practice in the prosecution of sexual offences was so selective as to have provided a misleading picture when he said, among other remarks, that the CPS that the HMCPSI report in December 2019 contained:

an independent finding that our procedures and practices and how we approach these cases is much more successful than perhaps it was in the past.” (letter 24 July 2020, p1)


  1. Dame Vera Baird QC, Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales wrote to Geoffrey Cox QC, Attorney General, MP, on 30 January 2020 setting out in details her concerns about the CPS approach and the HMCPSI review and stated that: “the simple fact is that the CPS are charging a much smaller proportion of those cases referred to them than previously was the case.” (Vera Baird QC’s letter, p6)


  1. On 14 November 2019 the Law Society Gazette published an article by Melanie Newman into a Gazette investigation into the CPS, which found that the CPS had a conviction rate ‘benchmark’ that had never been made public.  Women’s rights organisations brought a legal action against the CPS in the autumn of 2019, alleging that a covert change in its internal practice was partly responsible.  After an appeal (the legal action having initially failed), the application for judicial review is to proceed.


  1. Ms Newman noted that the CPS had previously denied any change in its approach to charging rape. But admitted to the Gazette that it imposed targets on staff between 2016 and 2018 that were ‘not appropriate’ and may have acted as a ‘perverse incentive’ on prosecutors, deterring them from charging less straightforward cases. Without wanting to state the obvious, historical cases of child abuse are not straightforward so are likely to have fallen foul of such target setting.


  1. The CPS stated that it had dropped all the conviction rate targets in April 2018, two years after their introduction and acknowledged that they were not an appropriate tool to measure its success in bringing the right cases to court – although the CPS’ inspectorate was still using them to measure the service’s performance in May 2019.


  1. Further proof that those who have suffered CSA face difficulties in the criminal justice system can be found in The London Rape Review (“the Review”), conducted by t[6]he mayor’s office for policing and crime (MOPAC) and the University of West London. This looked at 501 allegations of rape made across the city in April 2016, a time when the CPS’ questionable policy was in operation.


  1. The Review found that while 84% of allegations were classified as a crime by the police, in 58% of cases the victim withdrew the allegation. Only 6% of cases reached trial and 3% resulted in a conviction. The average length of time from the date of reporting to the trial outcome was 18 months.


  1. The review further found that a number of key factors exist in predicting whether a complainant will withdraw. The strongest predictors of victim withdrawal were procedural characteristics. For example, withdrawal was 6 times less likely in cases where the victim/survivor participated in a Video Recorded Interview, suggesting that such measures are having a positive effect in that they contribute significantly to rape complaints being carried forward towards a possible conviction.  Another factor highlighted by the Review, which is highly relevant to survivors of CSA in Lambeth, is that victim/survivor mental health, when considered as the sole factor, was a significant predictor of the police deciding to take no further action; however, when controlling for victim/survivor inconsistent accounts, it lost significance, suggesting to the authors of the Review that the relationship between victim/survivor mental health and the police taking no further action was due to inconsistency in testimony (Review p26).


  1. The extent to which, if at all, the Review considered or was in a position to consider whether inconsistency was linked to traumatic experiences is not known, but on behalf of the Core Participants who have suffered traumatic abuse as children, it is submitted that inconsistency and mental health problems as a result of trauma are not necessarily mutually exclusive. An inconsistent account well be consistent with, linked to or caused by a mental health difficulties or perhaps simply the difficulty in recalling and reliving extremely traumatic experiences.   Several CPs have described blocking or blanking out distressing memories: LA-A243 [Thematic Gist table F5]; LA-A323’s witness statement [INQ005688], para. 25; LA-A312 [Thematic Gist table I11].


  1. In giving evidence to this Inquiry on 1 July 2020 LA-A299 (who, after a course of bullying, was anally raped in the playground by an older care resident who appears to have been incited by a member of staff) said:
  2. There’s a lot that I’ve blocked out. There’s a lot that I don’t want to – I’ve never really wanted to remember anything about Shirley, to be honest with you. I have spent a lot of my life trying to push that out.” (P63 Transcript).


  1. Such reluctance is also likely to be a factor in complainant decisions to withdraw complaints. The Review found that victims/survivors’ reasons for withdrawal were complex and often interrelated. There were typically multiple reasons given for withdrawal, one the most common being the stress and trauma caused or exacerbated by the investigation, particularly because of having to talk in detail about the incident (Review pp13-14).


  1. Ultimately, while improvements have undoubtedly been made, victims/survivors of CSA continue to experience difficulties in the criminal justice system.


  1. Emma Harewood, who gave evidence on 28 July 2020, referred to The Children’s Commissioner published report in September 2015 and arising from Ms Harewood’s research, commissioned by NHS England into INQ005455_001 and _004; INQ005454_001 and _003. The Children’s Commissioner said in the introduction:

In England, it is estimated that only 1 in 8 victims of child sexual abuse are identified by the authorities. Children who disclose that they have been sexually abused face multiple interviews with social workers, the police and medical professionals in a variety of settings. Interviews are often the only source of evidence in sexual abuse cases, yet for many children the interviews led by the police do not enable 9 them to provide the best possible evidence. Repeat interviews can be confusing and cause children, particularly young children, to give inconsistent evidence which, in many cases, will lead to the perpetrator not being charged.  Children can be traumatised by having to give an account of their abuse to multiple professionals in multiple locations. They can also then face long waiting lists to access specialist therapeutic support….The current system is not child-centred and does not achieve the best results either for the children or the criminal justice system.”


  1. For all of these reasons, the movement towards a multi-disciplinary one stop approach such as the Children’s House, emulated by the Lighthouse, is welcome and it should be properly resourced, and made available on a nationwide basis.













  1. Victims/Survivors of child sexual abuse are able to bring a claims in the civil courts against a local authority:
  • in tort, on the basis of negligence and/or on the basis that it is vicariously liable for an assault/trespass to the person; or
  • a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 for Article 8 breaches (see cases referred to in the Children in Care section).


  1. Each type of claim presents a number of difficulties: in summary the Limitation Act 1980 sections 11 and 14 provide for a limitation period of 3 years from the time that the cause of action accrues or the date on which the Claimant knew that he or she had suffered a significant injury. Section 33 of the 1980 Act provides the court with a discretion to allow an action to proceed notwithstanding it is time-barred within the time permitted by ss.11 and 14 of the Act. The discretion is wide and based on the balance of prejudice to the parties but includes all the circumstances of the case. The checklist at s.33(3) provides a structure for guidance to which the court must have regard:
    • the length of, and the reasons for, the delay on the part of the plaintiff;
    • the extent to which, having regard to the delay, the evidence adduced or likely to be adduced by the plaintiff or the defendant is or is likely to be less cogent than if the action had been brought within the time allowed by section 11…
    • the conduct of the defendant after the cause of action arose, including the extent (if any) to which he responded to requests reasonably made by the plaintiff for information or inspection…
    • the duration of any disability of the plaintiff arising after the date of the accrual of the cause of action;
    • the extent to which the plaintiff acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the act or omission of the defendant, to which the injury was attributable, might be capable at that time of giving rise to an action for damages;
    • the steps, if any, taken by the plaintiff to obtain medical, legal or other expert advice and the nature of any such advice he may have received.


  1. Defendants in such cases are entitled and do raise the statutory limitation defence in such cases so that Claimants alleging historical child sexual abuse in almost all cases are required to seek the court’s Section 33 discretion and have the burden of proving that there were good reason for the delay in bringing a claim. This can present difficulties if for example a Claimant’s is inconsistent in his or her account or if the alleged perpetrator is dead, allowing the Defendant to plead that it would be unable to mount a proper defence to the allegation and thus it would not be in the interests of justice for the case to proceed.  Section 33 cases can also be difficult if the damages to be obtained are relatively modest, as case law suggests that proportionality is a relevant factor to be considered as one of the circumstances of the case.


  1. CN v POOLE BOROUGH COUNCIL [2019] UKSC 25 clarified and re-stated the law on negligence as it applies to local authorities dealing with children. A claimant must prove that he or she was owed  a duty of care by the local authority.  Where his or her case is based on alleged omissions by the local authority, the claimant must prove that the local authority assumed responsibility for him or her.  For example, a local authority could be shown to have assumed responsibility for a child if it issues proceedings and obtains an interim care order and then fails egregiously to protect a child, causing damage.  On the facts of the CN case, the local authority was not found to have assumed a responsibility actionable in negligence.  It not applied for an interim care order.  The children had been assessed as children in need under the Children Act 1989 and a local authority investigation relating to one of the children had taken place under Section 47 and the child was made subject to a child protection plan; but this was insufficient to form the basis for a duty of care.


  1. While CN is a recent decision which is yet to be tested extensively in the courts, claimants who, like many children in Lambeth were “hidden” looked after children; that is, with no interim care order in place, a private or voluntary arrangement in place and/or the child had been left at home in an unsafe situation, are likely to meet a defence that the local authority had not assumed a duty of care and therefore that the claimant has no cause of action.



  1. Human rights Act claims by contrast, do not require negligence to be proved in this way, but with a 1 year time limit for bringing claims (which can be disapplied in certain circumstances) and a damages regime which does not lead to very high awards, the availability for such claims is relatively limited.


  1. Similarly, a Criminal Injuries Compensation claim has a time limit of 2 years, which causes problems for adults who suffered abuse as children and the perpetrator was not convicted.














  1. The CPs welcome the scheme as a positive step in their search for recognition and justice. This is the first local authority scheme of its kind in England.  To date no other English local authority has offered such a scheme.  Without it many victims/survivors would have no recourse to justice.  Damages payments overall are roughly comparable to those that could have been received in a court award of damages, sometimes higher.  It is also right to point out that in our submission there are some limitations to the scheme, of which Switalskis solicitors have extensive experience, at the most recent count representing approximately 26% of Applicants to the Scheme.


  1. The main issues of concern to our CPs are as follows.


Racial Abuse

  1. Mr Verdan QC, counsel to Lambeth Council, has acknowledged that Lambeth recognises that children from black and ethnic minority communities suffered disproportionately in Lambeth’s care. The Inquiry is by now aware that children from minority ethnic groups were subjected to racial abuse by not only other children, but those who had been entrusted with their care.


  1. The scheme recognises that racial abuse an aggravating factor: at para 2.12 it is stated that: “an award for Aggravated Damages seeks to compensate for distress and humiliation caused. This category of damages is awarded as compensation for an individual’s mental distress where the manner in which the abuse has been committed, or the motive for the abuse, has upset or outraged the individual. For example, issues of race or sexual orientation.”


  1. In practice aggravated damages for racial abuse are limited to a 10% uplift which is capped at £10,000. Whilst it is understood that the scheme must be financially viable for Lambeth, it should be recognised that the racial abuse suffered, which in many instances was horrific and linked to the sexual and/or physical abuse of children, caused damage that went far beyond causing upset or outrage.  Although victims/survivors can be compensated under the scheme for long terms psychiatric injury, the effects of racial abuse, which, for many of our CPS undermined their very identities, do not fit neatly into a psychiatric diagnosis.  The damage caused by racism is not necessarily psychiatric, but psychological and all pervasive.


  1. In the circumstances we submit that the cap of £10,000 does not offer sufficient compensation and that consideration should be given to increasing the cap.


  1. Scheme awards for aggravated damages are said to be assessed “in line with common law principles.”. Even if such payments are to be limited to aggravated damages , we submit that  the cap is too low.


  1. Some cases below provide examples of the sort of awards that we submit would be a more appropriate starting point. They involve sexual abuse and not racial abuse, but the individual features of malevolence, cruelty, contempt for those being abused and breach of trust were very much part of the experience for those who suffered both racial and sexual abuse.


  1. AT & others v Dulghieru [2009] EWHC 225 (QB) – a trafficking case involving trafficked women being forced into prostitution in Soho (their brutal treatment included beatings, intimidation and being forced in some cases into having sex with 30 or 40 men a day). General damages awards ranged from £82,000 (£113,535) to £125,000 (£173,000);  aggravated damages of between £30,000 (£41,500) and £35,000 (£48,460) were awarded because the defendants’ conduct was appalling, malevolent, and utterly contemptuous of the claimants’ rights.


  1. We submit that CPs, who were of course children at the time, children were subjected to sexual and racial abuse, which was similarly appalling, malevolent, and utterly contemptuous of the claimants’ rights. LA-A309 is one example of this but her case is not unique.



  1. RAR v GGC [2012] EWHC 2338 (QB): awarded £10,000 (£12,000) in aggravated damages after RAR had suffered “cruel and unusual” sexual abuse at the hands of her step-father between the ages of 7 and 12. This included threats to C, a vulnerable girl, to send her to a children’s home if she did not comply with his sexual demands, from which there was no escape as C was abused in her own home.   The taking of photographs of the claimant in compromising positions caused her additional humiliation and distress. The judge made clear in her judgment that this did not represent a ‘double recovery’ with the general damages awarded at £70,000 (£84,300).


  1. GLB v TH [2012] EWHC 3904 (QB). £67,500 (£79,800) was awarded in general damages for abuse C suffered at the hands of her grandfather between the ages of 11 and 16.  £15,000 (£17,880) was awarded for aggravated damages because the abuse represented an abuse of trust and in recognition of the emotional upheaval caused by the conflict of emotions experienced; the claimant’s grandfather was on the one had nice and kind, and on the other, her abuser. There was also a loss of pride and self-esteem caused by the abuse that was not compensated by way of the general damages award.




  1. A child who was placed in a Lambeth home prior to being in foster care and then suffered abuse at the foster placement has included in his or her award the consequences of damage in both locations.


  1. Damage caused to a child who was in foster care before being placed in a Lambeth children’s home is not included. We submit that while there may be a rationale Behind this stance linked to causation issues , given the egregious and repeated failures by Lambeth to care for its children over decades 1 cannot be confident that the placement of such children Was well thought out and did not cause them damage. In the circumstances we submit that the redress scheme ought to compensate for abuse caused in foster placement whether this was before or after a child was placed in a Lambeth children’s home.



The Melting Pot

  1. We understand that this residential facility was managed and funded by Lambeth but was not a Lambeth home and that the Shirley Oaks Survivors’ Association is asking for it to be included in the scheme. We support SOSA’s efforts in this regard.



North Wales

  1. We have referred to a number of CPs, for example, LA-A311 in the section dealing with Michael Carroll. The evidence before the Inquiry shows that ultimately, Lambeth was responsible for transferring any children out of the area to homes that were unregistered and where they were abused.  We submit that consideration should be given to compensating call participants who, as a result of poor decision making on Lambeth’s part, suffered abuse in North Wales.






Loss of Earnings and Education

  1. This bracket is limited to £25,000. In many cases, is equivalent to a year’s earnings. We submit that whilst it is necessary to be mindful that public funds are involved, this amount is too low.


  1. The Inquiry has heard evidence and received witness statements to the effect that many CPs barely received adequate or any education. Some were unable to read.  The effect on such applicants of such a poor experience of education is not easy to measure but is likely to have had lifelong consequences for their ability to work and earn.



  1. Any applicant who has a complex and/or high value loss of earnings claim is likely to fall outside the scheme and will then have a stark choice of having to stay within the scheme and accept a payment that does not adequately compensate their loss, or to take their chances in a civil claim which, in our experience, will be fought hard on behalf of the defendant, and no guarantee that the claimant will succeed in meeting a limitation defence.


  1. There is, we acknowledge, a support and loss of opportunity component in the scheme but we submit that this cannot possibly compensate for decades of difficulty faced by those who were left, as some were, barely literate.
  2. We therefore invite the Inquiry to consider making recommendations for the scheme to be revised accordingly so that loss of a CPs education is more suitably compensated.


Non-Financial Aspects of the Scheme

  1. This consists of counselling, and for Lambeth residents, advice about housing, benefits and education. Initially, the counselling offered was face to face in Woolwich, South East London and via telephone with the Oxleas Trust, with whom we understand Lambeth entered into a contractual agreement for the provision of counselling services.


  1. On behalf of our CPs we are grateful that, following a meeting attended by some CPs, their legal representatives and Lambeth Council at which Amy Clowrey of Switalskis Solicitors spoke, Lambeth to extend this arrangement and pay for face to face counselling for applicants who live outside Woolwich. There is a condition that they must show that they could not obtain counselling via their GP first.  We submit that this is unfair because of the differential treatment of those applicants who do not live in the Woolwich area, which can result of many months’ delay as they seek a referral and wait to be referred by a GP.  We invite Lambeth to provide for and fund face to face counselling to avoid such delays.





Social care records

  1. Under the schemeapplicants only receive redacted versions of their records.  This contributes to a feeling among many CPs that Lambeth has something to hide from them and fosters feelings of mistrust.  While we appreciate that Lambeth may have concerns about data protection, we submit that the approach to redaction of social care files should follow common law principles.  In accordance with Dunn v Durham CC [2012] EWCA Civ.1654 redaction should be limited to circumstances where Lambeth can show that this is strictly necessary.  Further, provision can be made for undertakings to be given that applicants and their legal advisers will not disclose the documents and that they will be used solely for the purpose of the application.  We invite the Inquiry to make recommendations accordingly.















  1. The Inquiry has heard evidence that although qualified social workers are subject to regulation, care workers remain unregulated. In his oral evidence Lord Patel of Social Care England, acknowledged that Social Work England lacks the power to regulate such a group.  It spears that the ability to do so lies between the Department of Health and Social Care and Department of Education [28 July 2020, transcript p63].  Lord Patel also said that he believed that around 30% of vulnerable adults who suffered abuse were abused by professional carers, so that there was an issue regarding who should regulate this.


  1. He also acknowledged that the data held on social workers was “very minimum, basic data” which would impact on this question [transcript p64]. We submit that it is essential that such workers, who are responsible for caring for the most vulnerable in society, are regulated.


  1. Councillor Edward Davie gave evidence to Inquiry that Elected Councillors have available to them but are not required to undertake training on Children’s Safeguarding and corporate parenting. They should be. Given what has happened at Lambeth, no person elected to a role which includes responsibilities for corporate parenting can ever be allowed to take on such a role without receiving proper training about their responsibilities, including the safeguarding of children.

Duty to Report Suspected Sexual Abuse

  1. There is inconsistency in this country regarding the duty to report child abuse. In England there is no statutory mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse.  In Wales there is a statutory duty on certain public bodies to inform the local authority if they have reasonable cause to suspect abuse and neglect: Section 130 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014.  In England, certain regulated professionals such as doctors are required by their regulatory bodies to report abuse and government guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018 provides for reporting of suspected abuse by those involved in working with children.


  1. By contrast, in both England and Wales there is a statutory obligation on all regulated health and social care professionals and teachers to report female genital mutilation on female children to the police: Section 74 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.


  1. We submit that these gaps and inconsistencies in the system leave children at continuing risk of sexual abuse and that there should be a statutory duty to report suspected and actual cases of the sexual abuse of children. For reasons that remain Inexplicable to the core participants we represent, many staff who were in a position to assess the risk of sexual abuse.  We acknowledge that in the present day those working with children are more aware of the risk of sexual abuse, but there are recent examples (such as the Rotherham abuse) where the existence of a statutory mandatory requirement to report sexual abuse could have made a real difference to the victims/survivors of child sexual abuse.



  1. Had there been a statutory obligation to report cases of sexual abuse during the time that children were being sexually abused in Lambeth, we submit that it is likely this would have assisted those working with children to focus on and fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities, thereby preventing further abuse. We therefore invite the Inquiry to recommend that those involved in working with children should be subject to statutory mandatory reporting requirements.


  1. The Core Participants we represent remain concerned that over many years, despite repeated Inquiries and inspections, Lambeth continued to fail the children in its care and remained unaccountable for its failures. Such failures are not confined to the past or to Lambeth Council, as can be seen from the case law referred to earlier in these submissions and as the Inquiry has seen, children continued for years to be exposed to the risk of sexual abuse.


  1. Currently there is no overarching local authority regulator or national safeguarding body that is able to compel action and impose financial sanctions on local authorities who are in breach of their statutory duties towards and causing harm to children. For example, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman can make recommendations as to a remedy but cannot impose one.


  1. We submit that the time has now come for such regulation. Without this, given the history of repeated failures to protect children on the part of Lambeth and other local authorities, there is a real risk that already disadvantaged children in care or who are on the cusp of going into care will continue to be at risk and worse, to suffer damage.












21 August 2020







[1] The Coroners Rules 1984 (repealed), Rule 56 required such documentation to be retained for 15 years.  Current practice appears to be similar but there is scope for some records to be archived.  Source: The Surrey Council website link to policy on Registration and Coroners:

[2] or



[4] (See para.3.14)

[5] Care Planning, Placement and Care Review (England Regulations) 2010, regulation 45.

[6] .  (Frances Perraudin, The Guardian Newspaper, 31 July 2019).


Switalskis IICSA Lambeth Council summary week 4


27th July 2020 – 31st July 2020

Week 4

Brief overview of witness evidence

Day 18 – Wednesday 29th July 2020

Councillor Edward Davie – Elected member Lambeth Council and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People

Councillor Edward Davie has been an elected Member of Lambeth Council since May 2010 for Thornton Ward. He was designated as the statutory Lead Member for Children’s Services on 22 April 2020, when he was appointed Cabinet Member for Children and Young People. For the previous two years he was Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Care and for the seven years prior to that he chaired scrutiny committees including Health and Adult Social Care (2011-2014), Overview and Scrutiny (2014-2018) and Children’s Services Scrutiny (2016-2018).

Councillor Davie provides this statement on behalf of Lambeth Council in respect of the current role of Councillors in the governance and decision-making arrangements in the council in relation to children in the care of Lambeth (MORE DETAIL BELOW)

Dr Emily Phibbs – Clinical Psychologist

Dr Emily Phibbs is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist who has experience of working with survivors of abuse. The Inquiry has asked a number of questions to Dr Phibbs surrounding the impact of child sexual abuse. (MORE DETAIL BELOW)


The Inquiry heard from LA-A61, a survivor of abuse.

Thursday 30th July


Day 19 – Friday 31st July 2020

Core Participant Closing Submissions


Day 18 – Wednesday 29th July 2020

Councillor Edward Davie – Elected member Lambeth Council and Cabinet Member forChildren and Young People

Councillor Davie begins his statement by apologising on behalf of all current Lambeth councillors, to everyone who has been failed by Lambeth Council during the period covered by this inquiry. When a child becomes the legal responsibility of a local authority, they are obviously extremely vulnerable, and it is the legal and moral duty of that local authority to protect and nurture them. He confirms that as the evidence to this inquiry has made clear, Lambeth Council failed many children over decades leading to great harm to them and their families. Childhood trauma of the nature described by brave witnesses to this inquiry has lifetime consequences and has caused terrible damage.

Within his statement he discusses many points such as; governance and decision making, Corporate Parenting and Members Enquiries. In section 2 of his statement he discusses Statutory Responsibility for Children’s Services, The role of the statutory Director of Children’s Services (‘DCS’) and how it has professional responsibility for the leadership, strategy and effectiveness of local authority children’s services and is responsible for securing the provision of services which address the needs of all children and young people, including the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, and their families and carers. In discharging these responsibilities, the DCS works closely with other local partners to improve the outcomes and well-being of children and young people. The DCS is responsible for the performance of local authority functions relating to the education and social care of children and young people. The DCS is responsible for ensuring that effective systems are in place for discharging these functions, including where a local authority has commissioned any services from another provider rather than delivering them itself. Because the role of DCS is politically restricted, it cannot be held by an elected Member. He discusses the Lead Member for Children’s Services and the Working Together policy.

Councillor Davie discusses the Overview & Scrutiny and Assurance of Children’s

Services. He confirms that The Overview & Scrutiny Committees are not decision-making bodies but are designed to hold the Council’s executive (Cabinet) to account. Scrutiny provides backbench (non-Cabinet) councillor with the opportunity to question Cabinet members, senior officers and other statutory partners on their proposals and hold them to account for their decisions and for the delivery of anticipated outcomes.

The Children’s Services Scrutiny Sub-Committee is a scrutiny sub-committee of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. The purpose of the Children’s Services Sub-Committee is to scrutinise the provision, planning and management of children and young people’s services including children’s social care; safeguarding children, children in care; Special Education Needs and education inclusion; troubled families and the Youth Offending Service; education, learning and schools; youth services; early years; education capital estate; and youth and play services.

In section 5 of his statement he Corporate Parenting Board and confirms that that its responsibility is to monitor and review the quality and effectiveness of all services, delivered by the Council, partner agencies and commissioned services, taking into account the needs of children looked after and care leavers. The Corporate Parenting Board provides oversight to ensure that children looked after and care leavers are effectively supported to reach their potential through the provision of high-quality parenting, education and opportunities to develop their talents and skills and effective support for their transition to adulthood

In section 6 of his statement Councillor Davie discusses the Lambeth Fostering Panel is a statutory panel responsible for making recommendations in respect of fostering matters. Specifically, the function of the Panel is to consider: applications for approval and recommend persons suitability to act as a foster carer, the first annual review of newly approved foster carers, any subsequent foster carer’s reviews referred to it by the fostering service, recommend whether foster carers remain suitable, advise on and monitor the effectiveness of the procedures for undertaking reviews, provide advice on other matters or cases referred to it, to dual approve prospective adopters as foster carers and vice versa to enable permanency, whether a foster carer is suitable to care for a child long term. He confirms that The Panel is not a decision-making body; having considered each case presented, it then makes recommendations to the council’s decision maker. This is currently the Assistant Director for Corporate Parenting who will make the final decision on the matter having regard to the recommendation of the Panel.

He confirms that with respect to cases presented for approval of permanence plans for children to be placed with long term foster carers many documents would be provided to the members in advance of the Panel meeting, some of these include; Childs Permanence Report (known as the CPR) — a detailed profile of the child’s needs completed by the child’s allocated social worker, matching report setting out the rationale and basis for recommending the child be placed long-term with the identified foster carers and; a Support Plan setting out the council’s proposals to support the placement including social work and financial support.

Councillor Davie discusses the training and allowances for Councillors. He confirms after each borough-wide election newly appointed councillors are invited to attend an induction programme where information is provided about specific responsibilities and Committees. There is also an ongoing programme of Member development which continues through the term they are elected. Training is offered for Councillors sitting on the Corporate Parent Board. This provides members with information about their roles and responsibilities as a corporate parent to children who are looked after by Lambeth.

As a Councillor he has attended corporate parenting, mental health, governance and finance training.

In section 8 he discusses relevant partnerships with other organisations and the role councillors play with these organisations.

Councillor Davie concludes his statement by saying that he is relatively new to his respective role and he are currently reviewing a range of procedures and approaches including those related to the safeguarding of looked after children. He intends to make a series of further improvements starting with setting priorities at the Corporate Parenting away-day scheduled for 29 July 2020.

He states that whilst a range of training is offered to newly elected councillors at the

start of the municipal year he wants to ensure that more councillors participate in corporate parenting and safeguarding training by exploring how to make these sessions

He states that they also intend to increase the opportunities for children to make their voices heard and influence decision-making. To support this, Lambeth Council is developing a bid to become a UNICEF Child Friendly Borough in which the human rights and voice of children is paramount. High performing authorities such as Leeds City Council have adopted this model successfully and we intend to learn from them and UNICEF as this approach is developed.

Finally he states that Lambeth Council is committed to doing whatever is required to ensure that Lambeth Council learns from the outcomes of this inquiry. It will implement the recommendations it makes in addition to the current work that it is undertaking to improve safeguarding and wider outcomes of all Lambeth’s children, but most particularly of those they are directly responsible for children who are looked after or who are their care leavers

Dr Emily Phibbs – Clinical Psychologist

Dr Emily Phibbs is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist who has experience of working with survivors of abuse. The Inquiry has asked a number of questions to Dr Phibbs surrounding the impact of child sexual abuse.

Dr Phibbs is asked about the challenges faced by children who suffer from complex needs and/or communication difficulties when reporting abuse and particularly those children in residential care. In response to this Dr Phibbs discusses the ways in which the difficulties faced by children who have suffered abuse are heightened for those children who suffer with complex needs/ communication difficulties. She discusses how an additional difficulty that these children face is the inability of adults to facilitate communication with the child. She explores the importance of adults being willing to learn to communicate with such children. She discusses how children’s needs differ depending on their specific disability. For example, intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, mental ill-health and trauma.

Dr Phibbs is then asked to comment upon how the reporting of disclosures of sexual abuse by children with complex needs and/or communication difficulties differs from those children who do not suffer such difficulties. It is Dr Phibbs view that it seems highly likely that the reporting of disclosure of abuse is impacted by a high number of these children being unable to communicate in conventional ways which has not been understood by the adults around them. She also discusses how changes in the child’s behaviour (such as aggressive or difficult behaviour) can cause difficulties as the adult may not understand the reasons why the child is behaving in this way and a behavioural response may be given by the adult which places the child in double jeopardy. She discusses how children with additional needs my re-enact aspects of sexual abuse and how the wrong response from an adult can be a further bar to a child being able to communicate their lived experiences.

Dr Phibbs is then asked to comment upon an article she co-authored called “Opening Doors; best practice in therapy when a child might be showing or telling that they are at risk” (Marchant, Fuller and Phibbs 2017). Phibbs explains how this document sets out ways in which children can be safely support to provide further information around possible abuse and barriers that can occur when children makes or seems to make a disclosure or allegation of abuse. She is subsequently asked by the Inquiry to provide best practice advice. Dr Phibbs outlines the range of advice available in order to support children with complex needs when raising concerns about possible abuse.

Dr Phibbs has been asked by the Inquiry to comment upon whether the language used by an adult can impact the accuracy of a child’s account of child sexual abuse. Dr Phibbs discusses the current guidance in place for interviewing children and the importance of carefully questioning children. She gives examples of best practice. Dr Phibbs discusses, in details, the Achieving Best Evidence guidance. This is the guidance that the police use when conducting police interviews.

Dr Phibbs is asked about the importance of understanding a child’s psychological or development condition and the impact that may have on communication skills prior to any interview being undertaken. In response to this question Dr Phibbs discusses the role of police officers and how they cannot be expected to fully appreciate the multiple aspects of child development and psychological that may impact a child witness. It is her view that police officers ought to be able to recognise when they need assistance due to a child’s inability to communicate from other professionals. She discusses how guidance is available for this and the tools, and other resources, available to assess a child’s ability to communicate.  Dr Phibbs goes on to discuss the professional support that the police have access to such as a National Vulnerable Witness Advisor.

Following on from this Dr Phibbs provides details of best practice for preparing to interview a child with complex communication needs and where sexual abuse is suspected and, in particular the use of registered intermediaries and how this works in practice.

Dr Phibbs is also asked what steps can be taken to obtain the best evidence from a child. In this section of her statement Dr Phibbs concentrates on the support available to children post-interview such as when they are giving evidence at court. She refers to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidene Act 1999 and the special measures used such as, for example, the removal of wigs by judges and barristers and the uses of screens so that the witness cannot be seen by the defendants. She also discusses the use of intermediaries, pre-recorded evidence, evidence by video- link and the guidance available to the courts and advocates for dealing with vulnerable witnesses.

In Part 2 of her statement Dr Phibbs is asked about the abuse of children at Ivy House and Monkton Street which were Lambeth homes for children with complex needs. Dr Phibbs deals with the abuse and communication issues of specific children known to the Inquiry as LA A26 and LA A49.

Dr Phibbs goes on to discuss the a form that a police officer is required to complete following a disclosure of abuse, MG02 Form. She discusses how her understanding is that the form may be the first part of the documentation of a child’s need for special measures within the Criminal Justice system and assists the police with planning. She discusses how the police would need to make enquiries if it is clear at that stage that a child has communication difficulties and how an intermediary may be necessary.

Dr Phibbs is asked whether this ‘assessment prior to interview’ raises any concerns in practice.  It is her view that there is a danger that the information gained for the specific purpose of filling in a form may be privileged over the broader requirement to fully engage with an assessment of a child witness through gaining as much information as possible from those that know a child’s communication well. Dr Phibbs also discusses the implications of undertaking an assessment prior to an interview. She discusses how the police officer undertaking the ABE interviewer may not always be the person who undertook the assessment and so may not know the full information about the child. She is unsure whether these forms are always completed prior to children giving video evidence.

Within her statement Dr Phibbs reiterates the integral role that intermediaries play in supporting vulnerable child witnesses.


















Switalskis IICSA summary week 3



Week 3 – 20th July 2020 – 24th July 2020

Brief overview of witness evidence 23rd – 24th July

Day 14 – Thursday 23rd July

Commander Alex Murray – MPS

Commander Alex Murray has been a servicing police officer for 23 years and has performed roles in most ranks within the police service.

His statement deals with specific matters raised by the Inquiry which are; the development of MPS policies and procedures in responding to allegations of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation; and the current approach taken by the MPS to allegations of child sexual abuse and child exploitation.

James Bowler – Ministry of Justice  


Helen Kenward – Children in Lambeth Children’s Home Enquiry (CHILE)


Lord Paul Boateng


Day 15 – Friday 24th July 202

Stephen Bubb – Vice Chair, Social Services Committee, Lambeth Council

Mr Stephen Bubb was elected a Councillor for Clapham Old Town in Lambeth in May 1982. In 1983 he became the Vice-Chair of Social Services and subsequently Chief Whip.

In his statement Mr Bubb provides details of the way of the subcommittee and the way that it operated. He discusses the training and the Role of Councillors, the Brixton Riots and the consequences. He discusses the decision making and conflict on matters such as secure accommodation, fostering and adoption during the period he was employed by Lambeth.

Chris Hussell – Former Social Worker for Lambeth Council.

Chris Hussell was a social worker, and subsequently a Team Leader, in Lambeth in the early 1970’s. He left Lambeth in 1984 to take up another role.

Within his statement he discusses the culture of Lambeth Council and specific events that he was involved in during the period he was employed by Lambeth.

Joan Twelves – Former Lambeth Counsellor (leader of the Council)

Joan Twelves was an elected member of Lambeth Council from 1986 to 1994. She was the leader of the council between 1989 to 1991. She was medically retired in 1994

She discusses her experience in these roles.

Stephen Whaley – Councillor in Lambeth Council 1986-1994 

Stephen Whaley was a Councillor and Chair of Social Services Committee. We have already provided you with a summary of his witness statement which discusses, in detail, the poor state of the Council as a whole and the implications that this had upon the protection of children.

Detailed Summary of Evidence  

Commander Alex Murray – MPS

Summary of the witness evidence provided by Commander Alex Murray.

Commander Alex Murray has prepared this statement to deal with a number of matters related to specific investigations carried out by the Metropolitan Police Service.

Commander Alex Murray has been a servicing police officer for 23 years and has performed roles in most ranks within the police service. His current role is the lead of Central Specialist Crime Operational Command Unit, two of its functions are 1) vulnerability (including Child Sexual Exploitation and Operation Winter Key) and 2) Online Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation.

His statement deals with specific matters raised by the Inquiry which are; the development of MPS policies and procedures in responding to allegations of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation; and the current approach taken by the MPS to allegations of child sexual abuse and child exploitation.

First Commander Alex Murray confirms that the exact remit of; and introduces Operation Winter Key Investigation in that it is to ‘investigate criminal allegations of non-recent child sexual abuse referred to the MPS through IICSA/Operation Hydrant or by other reports or referrals to the MPS where a the allege abuse took place before 2012’;


  1. By people of prominence in public life,
  2. In the context of educational or religious organisations, where it would appear that there is repeated institutional failings.
  3. Within Local Authority premises or within voluntary organisations, where it would appear that there is repeated institutional failings.
  4. Within national and private service organisation (such as the BBC), where it would appear that there is repeated institutional failings or
  5. As otherwise agreed by the Gold Commander.


Operation Winter Key has also taken the responsibility for investigating complaints and allegations of police misconduct arising from MPS investigations of, or responses to non-recent child sexual abuse falling within the above criteria. Operation Winter Key refers any such cases of alleged misconduct to the IOPC.

Commander Alex Murray makes this statement in his capacity as the Commander with responsibility for Operation Winter Key

He discusses the general development of policy and practice between 1963 and 2016.

He confirms that based on the information available which suggests that specialist child abuse teams only began operating within with MPS in 1988. Information suggests that child abuse sexual abuse offences were dealt with by the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) between 1963 and 1988.

He confirms that the approach to the investigation of child sexual abuse allegations changed in 1988 when the CPT (Child Protection Teams) were introduced to the MPS. The aim of the new CPT was to investigation allegations or suspicions of children abuse with the investigations to be conducted within a ‘multi-disciplinary approach (i.e. jointly with social workers from the relevant Social Services Department or with representatives from other agencies).

He discusses the current approach to Child Sexual Abuse and Child Sexual Exploitation from 2016 to present.

He provides details regarding the PNC (Police National Computer), PND (Police National Database), the CRIS (Crime Reporting Information System); ViSOR (Violent and Sex Offenders Register), the DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service).

He then goes on to discuss the current approaches to information-sharing and the process available to police officers.

He discusses the training of officers investigating Child Sexual Abuse and Child Sexual Exploitation in that since 2005 all new police officer recruits have received training of child protection and safeguarding and that since 2015 new police officer recruits have received training on the following; safeguarding children, which includes training on their responsibilities under the Children Act 2004; child sexual exploitation and missing persons.

This training aims to enable new police officers joining the MPS to; take appropriate and proportionate action when they identify a safeguarding issues; to recognise child sexual exploitation; to respond effectively to reports of the same and to effectively investigate and report cases where a person has gone missing. He discusses the specialist training which is now also provided to officers, this is subject to continuous review and improvement.

James Bowler – Ministry of Justice  

Helen Kenward – Children in Lambeth Children’s Home Enquiry (CHILE)

Lord Paul Boateng

Stephen Bubb – Vice Chair, Social Services Committee, Lambeth Council

Summary of the witness evidence provided by Stephen Bubb

Mr Stephen Bubb was elected a Councillor for Clapham Old Town in Lambeth in May 1982. In 1983 he became the Vice-Chair of Social Services and subsequently Chief Whip. However along with 32 other colleagues he was disqualified in April 1986 for refusing to implement major cuts to their budgets.

Mr Bubb provides his personal and professional background.

Within his statement he discussed the Committee System in Lambeth which as the Vice-Chair of Social Services, he sat on all sub committees, included the cases subcommittee. He confirms that he was not involved in setting up the subcommittee as this was already established when he came into post.

He confirms that the subcommittee of social services examined individual cases focusing on the statutory duties of the council for children and young people in care, fostering and adoption, the cases of the subcommittee received recommendations from officers or from the adoption panel.

He confirms that at the time local councils had more powers and duties in relation to the legislation concerning children, but that over time these council social service powers have gradually been reduced. The cases subcommittee was there to consider cases in more detail such as secure accommodation, fostering and adoption than would have been possible in the main social services committee.

In his statement Mr Bubb provides details of the way of the subcommittee and the way that it operated. He discusses the training and the Role of Councillors, the Brixton Riots and the consequences. He discusses the decision making and conflict on matters such as secure accommodation, fostering and adoption.

Mr Bubb confirms that he did not know Michael Carroll or his wife. He believes that he was not made aware that Mr Carroll had a conviction for child sexual abuse nor did he know that they had made an application to foster children.

Chris Hussell – Former Social Worker for Lambeth Council.

Summary of the witness evidence provided by Chris Hussell.

Chris Hussell was a social worker, and subsequently a Team Leader, in Lambeth in the early 1970’s. He left Lambeth in 1984 to take up another role.

He discusses the culture at the council which he describes as ‘liberal/progressive and innovative’ and he talks of how the staff were ‘open minded and non-judgemental’. He explains that it was not until the mid-1980’s that they (likely to be referring to social services/ workers) became aware of paedophilia and that he became aware of the ‘devious and manipulative nature of paedophiles and the need to adopt a more sceptical approach’. He discusses how prior to this he took people at face value.

He does not recall any investigations during the time he was employed. He discusses difficulties in the relationship that Lambeth social care had with the police in that here was a strong difference in culture.

He then goes on to discuss events that he was specifically involved in which relates to the alleged abuser LA-F36, who was dismissed from his position in 1982. The child, then an adult, involved later took his own life. Prior to this they had made a statement to police in 1999. Chris Hussell states that he was no aware of any allegations until he was interviewed by police in 1999.

Chris Hussell discusses how in hindsight it could be considered that they were ‘naïve and too trusting’.

Joan Twelves – Former Lambeth Counsellor (leader of the Council)

Summary of the witness evidence provided by Joan Twelves

Joan Twelves was an elected member of Lambeth Council from 1986 to 1994. She was the leader of the council between 1989 to 1991. She was medically retired in 1994.

Within her statement she discusses the difficulties being faced by the Labour party in the mid-1980s and how many councillors were disqualified from Lambeth due to issues surrounding rate-capping. She describes how 37 of the 40 councillors elected were brand new which caused difficulties as the calibre of experience was mixed.

She discusses how her own interests, experience and expertise were focussed on housing, women’s rights and employment issues rather than social services.

She describes it as a miracle that the elected members of the council were able to survive the turmoil and that the government didn’t intervene. She describes political upheaval.

Joan Twelves discusses how the overall dysfunctional corporate management combined with the elected members collective inexperience may have allowed unacceptable occurrences and practices to go unnoticed and unpunished.

She then goes on to discuss her experience as leader of the council during the years 1989-91. She describes trying to heal many rifts which had developed over the previous three years. She describes shaking up and strengthening corporate management and how she introduced a new regime of prudent financial management. She provides evidence of her progress such as comments from the District Auditor who describes ‘real progress’.

Twelves discusses the effectiveness of Councillors and how some were more effective than others, conflict between Councillors and Officials and industrial action in children’s homes between 1983 and 1984, the ‘same race’ policy  Carroll and the Appleby Report.

She closes her statement acknowledging that not everything she did was done perfectly and she apologises for any mistakes she may have made. She acknowledges that the Council could  have improved about the manner in which they served.

She states ‘it is of great regret to me that I was unable to effect those lasting improvements which I had sought to create.

Stephen Whaley – Councillor in Lambeth Council 1986-1994

Summary of the witness evidence provided by Stephen Whaley:

Mr Whaley provides a statement discussing his role as a Councillor of Lambeth and subsequently as Chair of Social Services Committee. He was a Councillor between 1986 and 1994.

He described how most Council’s at the time were not employed as Councillors and therefore undertook duties in their spare time whereas today the Lambeth Council Leaders and those Cabinet Members are given salaries to enable them to work full-time.

He discusses in detail how there was effectively open warfare in the Council’s Management Team during the time that he was a Councillor. He discusses the culture at the time being difficult due to the political situation and how trade unions had a great deal of influence. He describes major issues facing the Council including the state of the Council’s finances. He describes how the Council’s finances were in an appalling state which led to decisions to close social services and that it had always been expensive.

He notes there are a number child protection issues that he had concerns and he goes onto detail specific instances relating to possible sexual abuse of children. He discusses how he was involved in the setup of the Clough inquiry which investigated events surrounding Michael John Carroll and how he in particular always wondered why Carroll had not been sacked in 1986 and believes the decision not to do so was wrong.

He discusses how when he was the Chair of Social Services he believed he had a reasonable professional working relationship with David Pope. He feels that with hindsight David Pope was selective about the information he provided to Mr Whaley. He notes that when the Clough Report was published David Pope’s employment was not questioned. He believes that this may have been because there was a state of paralysis with there having been three Chief Executive’s within three months.

He describes the major institutional conditions at that time plus the events at Monkton Street and Ivy House.

He goes on to discuss how the many reports recommended change and that Council Officers failed to follow through important recommendations in relation to the protection of children against child sexual abuse. He discusses how there was cross party concern that the commissioning of reports was not achieving any real changes and recommendations.

He also discusses the employment of unqualified social workers.

Ultimately his view is that the Council was in meltdown which impacted its ability to protect children in care homes and foster care homes.


Switalskis IICSA summary week 2


Week 2


Brief overview of Witness Evidence 06-10 July

Day 6 – 06 July

The Inquiry heard from 3 survivors of abuse.

Day 7 – 07 July

Val Suebsaeng (nee Rogers) – Social Worker 1976-1984

A summary of Val Suebsaeng’s witness statement is below:

Val Suebsaeng was a social worker for Lambeth between 1976 and 1984. In 1984 she became a team manager until she left Lambeth Council in 1989.

Her witness statement discusses the culture of the Council and indicates that there was a lot of change throughout the period that she worked for Lambeth. Developments tended to be when new policy was brought into force.

Val Suebsaeng recalls how councillors became more closely involved in individual cases in the late 1980s and how this led to conflict between the councillors and the officers.

She discusses how in the 1980s a Permanency Policy was put in place to try and ensure children were returned to their own families or placed in adoptive families as efficiently as possible.

Val Suebsaeng discusses her knowledge of Michael John Carroll and how she came to be informed of his conviction. She states she was not aware of this conviction until 10 years after she had left Lambeth and he asked her for a reference. She describes how he minimised his conviction and described it as horseplay, as did senior members of the Council. She provided a reference.

She discusses the conversations that she subsequently had with senior members of the Council in relation to Michael John Carroll and the decision made, by senior members of the Council, to give Michael John Carroll a final warning which enabled him to remain at his post as officer in charge of Angell Road Children’s Home.

Val Suebsaeng voluntarily made contact with the police in 2014 and provided a statement regarding her knowledge of Michael John Carroll.


Clive Walsh – Probation officer and local authority social services senior manager; Assistant Director with Southwark Social Services (1978-1985)

A summary of Clive Walsh’s statement is below:

Clive Walsh discusses Clive Walsh worked for Southwark social services department and in around 1987 or thereabouts he received a request from Lambeth to approve Michael John Carroll and his wife as foster carers. His statement discusses how due to the schedule 1 offence he deemed it inappropriate for Mr Carroll and his wife to be approved as foster carers and rejected and denied his request. Within his witness statement he notes that the managers themselves and Lambeth were wholly supportive and approving of Carroll as existing members of their own staff.

He discusses how it was explained to him that Carroll’s wife was not aware of his conviction and he wanted to avoid the embarrassment of her finding out which is why he had not disclosed the conviction.

He notes that Lambeth did not volunteer that Mr Carroll was a schedule one offender was making the request for Southwark to approve him as a foster parent.

Within this statement he refers to a statement that he provided to the police dated the eighth in 2014. In preparing this review I have also reviewed the statement which, apart from that mentioned above, also refers to a meeting between Southwark social services and Lambeth social services in which a politician Janet Boateng also attended and put pressure on Clive Walsh and Southwark to reverse their decision to deny John Carroll as a foster carer.

He also notes that he had a couple of calls from somebody that referred to themselves as Paul Boateng, who would have been Janet Boateng’s husband, and who also worked in politics.

He said that those of the clear impression given was that Mr Carroll had friends in positions of influence and that included Janet Boateng.

He states that during this unusual meeting, which took place at 7:30 PM and was not minuted, it was clear that Lambeth were concerned that another local authority had deemed it inappropriate for Carroll to be a foster carer and the implications that this would have upon their decision to continue to employ him as an officer in charge of Angell Road. It is his view that there must be another reason, other than stupidity, from managerial failure to accept the responsibility and the opportunity to safeguard children in their residential care settings by removing John Carroll from post when his nondisclosure of a schedule 1 offence came to light.


Richard Clough – General Secretary to the Social Care Association (wrote the Clough report)

A summary of Richard Cough’s report is below:

Richard Clough was commissioned to prepare the Clough Report (1993). This statement covers his findings.

Richard Clough was approached in February 1993, as the General Secretary to the Social Care Association, by the London Borough of Lambeth to undertake an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the employment of Mr John Carroll by Lambeth Council and the subsequent application by Mr and Mrs Carroll to foster children in the care of Lambeth Council. He was nominated to undertake this inquiry by the Department of Health. The Terms of Reference (i.e. what the inquiry would look into) were set by Lambeth. The inquiry that he undertook did not relate to allegations of child sexual abuse.

He describes the process of preparing the report and how it was completed in May 1993.

His report discusses Carroll’s conviction and how it should have been disclosed to Lambeth Council when he applied to be the Deputy Office in charge of a Lambeth Council children’s home in 1978 and again when he applied for the post of Officer in Charge of the Children’s home in 1990.  Richard Clough also discusses an anonymous letter which was received by the Senior Care Home Officer of Lambeth Council in November 1994 alleging wrongdoing by Carroll. It was unclear to Richard Clough as to whether Senior Officials took any action about this despite a memo being sent to the Senior Assistant Director of Social Services.

Richard Clough then goes onto discuss the Carroll’s application to foster children (to Croydon in 1986) and how this led to knowledge of his convictions. Carroll was then disciplined in 1986 and received a final written warning. It is Richard Clough’s view that the Lambeth Social Services did not eliminate the risk to children when they had a justifiable opportunity to do so. He believes that the decision not to terminate Carroll’s employment was the root cause of later decisions and actions/ non-actions.

He further discusses Carroll’s further application to foster children in 1987 at a time when Lambeth were aware of his conviction and how Wandsworth were asked to carry out the assessment and allegations that pressure was put on Wandsworth to approve the assessment report as satisfactory, particularly by Jack Smith who was the Chair of the Foster Panel. Wandsworth rejected the application.

Senior Officers of Lambeth Council, including David Pope, then sought to formalise an ‘aunt and uncle’ relationship between the Carroll’s and the 2 boys that they had attempted to foster.

He then goes on to discuss matters leading to Carroll’s dismissal in the 1990’s. Matters which related to unauthorised purchases, falsified overtime claim and other matters.

Richard Clough acknowledges that the recommendations within the report that he prepared ought to have been clearer and that he should have emphasised the importance of ensuring that Warner report recommendations were adopted.

Richard Clough states that he did not become aware of any matters of child sexual abuse in Lambeth when preparing the report and if he had he would have halted the inquiry and brought these matters to the attention of the relevant authorities

He was not aware of Lambeth’s internal investigation into Carroll in 1994 until papers were provided to him as part of this Inquiry.

Lady Janet Boateng – Former Chair of Social Services Committee of Lambeth Council 1982-1986

A summary of Lady Janet Boateng’s statement is below:

Lady Janet Boateng initially worked a volunteer youth worker in Lambeth and Wandsworth in the early 1970’s and then went on to work as a residential social worker in 1977-1978 and as a Deputy House Mother in one of the homes run by London of Borough of Lambeth.

She became very active in the movement for civil rights and racial justice. She sought to address the problem of black underrepresentation at every level of government in the public services and society. She saw how racial injustice impacted upon the lives of young children and their parents.  BAME young people and their families were more likely to be living in poverty, unemployed underachieving or excluded from school and over represented in custodial or institutions. BAME communities lacked a voice and all too often when concerns were raised they were either not heard or not acted on. Lady Janet Boateng wanted to be part of movement to change this and as a consequence became a councillor in Lambeth in 1982.

During her employment she was concerned about the experience of children in residential settings the disproportionate number of BAME children in Children’s homes. The quality of care they received and difficulties in in finding suitable placements for fostering and adoption.  She therefore set up a rota of visits which gave all members of the Social Services Committee the opportunity to visit and familiarise themselves with the establishments.

She recalls a heated meeting involving herself, the Deputy Chair, Stephen Bubb and senior Lambeth Officials including the Director Robin Osmond. This was in relation to her request following a meeting of the Case Sub Committee where an allegation of sexual abuse of a child in the care of Lambeth came to light against an employee of Southwark Council in a secure home. She wanted to meet to discuss the welfare of one of their wards. She recalls the attitude of the Chair of Southwark was extremely defensive and unhelpful, she felt threatened and intimidated. She requested that the Chair pursue this matter and make sure this was dealt with properly. She believes that an employee at that home was convicted of sexual abuse.

She refers to the initial investigation being below an acceptable standard. She does not know if the initial investigation was tainted by corruption, but does confirm that it lacked insight and sensitivity to the parents’ concerns, this again shows that when members of the BAME community raised concerns they were not listened to or acted on.

In her view the second management meeting that the disciplinary proceedings were entirely justified and the fact that the outcome of the proceedings in not upholding the disciplinary complaint was unsatisfactory and a matter of grave concern.

She had seen the consequences of ignoring the significance of ethnic identity and culture on children in residential and institutional settings and in placements. The availability of appropriate food and hair care products and knowledge as how to give a child a sense of positivity with a regard to appearance  were overlooked in placements at the time and staff were often ignorant of these matters as well as being ill equipped to cope with a child’s needs. Others were in denial as to the significance of these matters. The placement of BAME children in rural settings with families from different ethnic backgrounds without support often left them ill-equipped to deal with racism and racial disadvantage.

After a national confrontation between Labour led Local Authorities and Conservative central government which became known as the Rate Capping Rebellion, she was part of the 32 members who declined to set a central government cap rates as this would mean cuts of £113 million from already stretched budgets including that of social services. She was therefore disqualified from office in 1986 and had no further involvement with Lambeth council.

Dame Heather Rabbatts (DBE) – Former Chief Executive of Lambeth Council 1995 – 2000 (witness statement awaited)

Day 8 – 08 July

David Pope – Director of Social Services (appointed 1988-1995).

Summary of the witness statement of David Pope:

David Pope began working at the London Borough of Lambeth in 1975 as Social Work Team Leader. He continued to work for Lambeth until in 1988 he was appointed as a Director of Social Services. He left Lambeth in 1995 after the Appleby Report was published. He agreed to accept voluntary redundancy. This was based on a projected overspend on the adult social care budget and the need for a change in leadership.

The statement discusses and the culture within the Council, which he describes as radical, in light of the political changes in the early 1980s and that it was highly stressful and continually difficulty situation attempting to change service and delivery. He discusses the long-standing and ongoing problems in providing services of high quality. This is despite the hard work of staff

and effort of staff involved. He describes how Lambeth was one of the most deprived boroughs and there were issues recruiting and re-training qualified and un-qualified staff. There were financial issues, budgetary constraints, media criticism and other issues which led to issues. He goes on to discuss the overview of management and how the committee structure worked. He discusses training recruitment and retention.

He states he was not aware of John Michael Carroll’s conviction for sexual abuse prior to Carroll’s disciplinary proceedings. He discusses how the fact that Carroll had failed to disclose his offence during his period of employment with Lambeth, while serious, was not the purpose of the investigation. The primary focus was to see whether his previous conviction had any bearing on the safety of children in their care. Ultimately it was concluded that the investigation and the information presented to the panel corroborated what Carroll had said. It was therefore decided that he would be given a final written warning.

He also discusses Angell Road and Carroll’s application to foster.

He then discusses schedule 1 offences generally and states that Lambeth did not have a specific policy in relation to the employment of schedule 1 offenders in 1992. Local authorities at the time would take offences into account and not use them as an automatic disqualifier.

He then goes on to discuss various reports which looked into abuse in Lambeth and particularly a report regarding South Vale (Zephyrine Report). He indicates that with hindsight it may have been that had the inquiry spoke to children then evidence in relation to Les Paul may have come to light sooner. He goes on to discuss the Barratt Report and the Appleby Report which ultimately led to him taking voluntary redundancy.

Clare Whelan – Councillor on Social Services Committee

Summary of the witness statement of Claire Whelan OBE:

Claire Whelan was a Councillor for Lambeth between May 1998 and 2014. She has held various other posts but during her time as a Councillor for Lambeth she was immediately appointed the Conservative Spokesperson for Social Services. When she was appointed she had major concerns about child sexual abuse and the running of the children’s homes. This followed the report from the manager of the Council’s children’s homes, Robert Morton, who prepared the Morton Report.

Following this repot she requested an immediate inquiry into the allegations made in this report. This did not happen. She continued to have an interest in the children’s homes in Lambeth and notes that it was her long-standing view that, given Lambeth’s records, they should not be running children’s homes at all.

She then discusses specific children’s homes such as South Vale and her concerns.

She discusses how she put a report together in relation to the Melting Pot, which was not a Lambeth run home although funded by Lambeth, and how she took all of her papers to be the Social Services Inspectorate in 1991 seeking an inquiry. In 1992 there were further allegations about sexual abuse in Lambeth homes and that this came to Councillors attention via the press rather than Council Officers which was inappropriate.

Later, in 1991 the Social Services Inspectorate carried out an inspection of child protection services at Lambeth as part of a rolling programme but they were not specifically looking at the management of Lambeth children’s homes or the abuse of the children at the hands of professional carers. That being said the report found major concerns of Lambeth social services and it noted that there was delay in investigation, conferencing and programming. She notes that the Inspectorate also criticised Lambeth’s policy of removing the requirement to have professional social work qualifications to achieve the recruitment of black staff. She notes how the Council’s process to improve discrimination policies had unintended negative consequences and ultimately the care and safety of children at risk should have been given top priority.

She goes on to discuss Stockwell Park children’s home and incidents that occurred at Monkton Street and Ivy House, Angell Road the various reports that were commissioned to look into the situation in Lambeth children’s homes.

She discusses the culture of Lambeth and describes in detail how it was dysfunctional.

It is notable that throughout this witness statement, Claire Whelan provides a number of exhibits to her statement which highlights that she was trying to push Lambeth to take the issues of child protection seriously. There are a number of communications between Claire Whelan and senior members of the Council and she discusses how she received a number of people coming to her as whistle-blowers. She notes on at least three occasions she handed over information to law enforcement investigations.

Overall Claire Whelan’s statement provides strong evidence that she tried to raise the issue of child sexual abuse and the protection of children in Lambeth throughout her time as a Lambeth Councillor.

Anna Tapsell – Employee of Lambeth Social Services (1978-1989); member of Lambeth Council (1990 – 1998)

Summary of Anna Tapsell’s 1st statement is below:

Anna Tapsell initially joined Lambeth as an Assistant Carer in 1978. She continued her employment with Lambeth as well as being actively involved with trade union and the Labour Party until 1989 when she retired on medical grounds. She was then persuaded to stand to be elected to the Lambeth Council in 1990 and she was successful. She sat on various committees and ultimately became the Chair of the Social Services Committee in around 1993.

She discusses how when she became a Councillor she became aware of Michael John Carroll’s schedule 1 offence in around 1982. She questioned David Pope, the Director of Lambeth Social Services, about this and indicates that he downplayed the incident as horseplay. She described how she was on the Appeal Committee to hear John Carroll’s appeal against his dismissal in 1991 for fraud offences and to her it seemed there was a pattern of behaviour that was not a good practice of childcare.

Anna Tapsell discusses how thereafter David Pope told her that she was to prepare a sensitive piece of work for the children of Angell Road. This was to see if the children had any problems as a result of being at Angell Road. She was also to approach the staff. Despite her chasing progress reports it appears this work was never completed.

She confirms she approached the Social Services Inspectorate and asked them to force Lambeth to undertake an independent inquiry to establish why Carroll had continued his employment in child care after Lambeth became aware of his conviction. She was unsuccessful with this as they felt it was not appropriate. She also approached the Metropolitan police.

As she was not getting anywhere she leaked the story to the press. After the report appeared in the newspaper the Minister of Health and Social Services ordered an inquiry.

She also discusses how she spoke to other people including Elizabeth Appleby (who prepared the Appleby Report) and told the Chief Executive of Lambeth Council about her concerns.

According to Anna Tapsell, David Pope made further disclosures to her in around 1993 about another girl who alleged that Carroll had sexually abused her. She told him the allegation needed to be thoroughly investigated.

Anna Tapsell then covers her knowledge of Carroll’s adoption application and notes how Lambeth were compromised because of the earlier decision which they had made (not to sack him) which declared Carroll a fit person to care for the most vulnerable children.

She discusses how a social worker was threatened with disciplinary proceedings when she refused to place any other children with Carroll.

She then goes on to discuss concerns that other people raised in relation to John Carroll.

Anna Tapsell then goes on to provide a further statement which provides further clarification as to the above and looking more closely at the committee system and the political atmosphere. She goes on to state ‘the bureaucratic gap between town hall based, high status officers and those responsible for the care of children in particular is unjustified and dangerous’.

She further discusses Janet Boateng and, what she describes as, ‘entirely inappropriate’ interference in individual cases and additional information regarding her knowledge of Michael John Carroll, various reports, the Paedophile Information Exchange and police investigations including into the production of child pornography.

She also touches on her knowledge of Steven Forrest against whom allegations of child sexual abuse have been made.

Day 9 – 09 July

Lord Herman Ouseley, Former Assistant Chief Executive, Lambeth Council

A summary of Lord Herman Ouseley’s statement is below:

Lord Herman Ouseley held a variety of posts over his career but notable to this Inquiry he was the Assistant Chief Executive of Lambeth between 1984 and 1986 (for 18 months) and the Chief Executive of Lambeth between 1990 and 1993.

Lord Herman Ouseley indicates that on both occasions he left Lambeth as he felt unable progress was not being made. He also notes political and management turmoil across the Council in the 1980’s. He is unable to provide much information regarding issues relation to child protection and child abuse as he had little involvement with the social services directorate. He indicates he had no knowledge of Michael John Carroll during 1984-86 and between 1990-93 matters relating to Carroll passed by him. He spent most of his later years of employment dealing with issues of corruption.

Lord Herman Ousely discusses the difficult financial situation Lambeth found itself in which had direct impact on directorates such as Social Services and how decisions were often driven by directorate interests and “protectionism”. He gives examples of this. He discusses his frustrations about the number of reports about cases and system failures and how recommendations for action were being led and implemented, or not and how there was a culture of initiating inquiries and investigations into serious complaints rather than prioritising the implementation of best management practices.

Finally, he outlines the harassment/ personal attacks that he faced such as threatening calls in the middle of the night, smashed windscreens and slashed tyres.

David Staples – United Grand Lodge of England (Freemasons)

David Staples is the Chief Executive Officer and Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England. He provides an overview of how the Freemasons operates on an international, national and local level.

He discusses Freemasonry in Lambeth and particularly how there is no record of Freemason meetings taking place at a place called “Town Hall” or “Lambeth Town Hall”.

The Inquiry provided a list of names to the Grand Lodge who are persons of interest to the Inquiry. David Staples describes how he was not able to identify any persons on this list as a Freemason. Further searches found that 1 person, who was employed by Lambeth, may be a Freemason and they resigned from his Lodge in 1988.

David Staples also discusses the outcome of the Harris and the Appleby Reports.

Dr Nigel Goldie – several senior roles in Lambeth Council (1990 – 1999), appointed Assistant Director of Corporate Strategy & Quality

Gillian Delahunty

Day 10 – 10 July

Dr Clive Driscoll – Former Detective Inspector with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Richard Gargini – Former Commander with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Crown Prosecution Service – Gregor McGill





























Switalskis IICSA evidence summary week 1


Brief overview of Witness Evidence 29 – 03 July


01 July – The Inquiry heard from 4 survivors of abuse.


02 July 2020 – Annie Hudson, Outgoing Strategic Director of Lambeth Children’s Services (summary here):

Review of the First Witness Statement of Annie Hudson

Strategic Director for Children’s Services




Ms Hudson explains her role as the Strategic Director for Children’s Services in that she has statutory responsibility for the Council’s services for children in care. She has held this position for 4 years since May 2016.  She states that Lambeth Council recognises that it failed children who were in care in Lambeth Care in the past and that the consequences of children abuse and neglect are profound and life altering for individuals. She highlights the fact that a number of internal and external investigations were set up for the purpose of examining particular service failures. These clearly indicated that there was a continuing failure to ensure that children were protected and it is clear that the Council did not respond robustly and systematically to address the underlying risk factors and identified causes.

Annie Hudson apologises unreservedly on behalf of Lambeth Council to all of the former children in the care of the Council who were failed so badly by the Lambeth Council.

She confirms that the Council was entrusted with the care of the most vulnerable children and those who experienced harm and abuse whilst in care of the council were failed so badly by Lambeth, there were systematic failures to safeguard children in Lambeth’s care and these vulnerable children were placed in harm’s way.

She acknowledges the courage that survivors have shown in coming forward and sharing their experiences. She mentions that fact that not all survivors were believed in the past and confirms that the Council have taken a number of steps in order to address this failure and to acknowledge the experiences of those in its care.

Lambeth Council have accepted responsibility for the abuse and neglect that occurred at Shirley Oaks and other Children’s Homes managed by the Council. Lambeth Council hopes that the steps taken demonstrate its unequivocal commitment to acknowledge and seek to address past failings.

She recognises the importance of this Inquiry in examining the nature and extent of past failing and in identifying any lessons that might be learned and in highlighting what can be done to ensure children are protected from such harm in the future.

There are many exhibits referred to in Ms Hudson’s statement and these are all available to Core Participants should they wish to view them

Summary of Sections in the Witness Statement

The statement considers the arrangements and culture of Lambeth Council (section 4). This includes an explanation of the Council Committees that were responsible for Lambeth’s children’s homes between 1965, when Lambeth Council was created, and 1995, when the last mainstream children’s home closed. It also describes the decision making structures in place over this period for managing Lambeth’s children’s homes. Lambeth recognises that its political and corporate culture during the period it managed children’s homes was at times chaotic and problematic, and acknowledges with deep regret the poor and inconsistent quality of governance of Lambeth’s children’s homes over this period The Council acknowledges that there were significant failures of leadership and governance at both political and officer level during this period and accepts that the prevalent culture at times was not conducive to promoting the welfare and safety of the children in its care. Although many of the problems Lambeth encountered were shared by other local authorities, even by the standards of the time, the culture in some of Lambeth’s children’s homes was harsh, uncaring, and hostile which created an environment where the risks to children were likely to have been increased.

A short introduction is then provided to each of the children’s homes to be considered in the case studies: Shirley Oaks; South Vale Assessment Centre; Angell Road; Ivy House and Monkton Street children’s homes (section 5).

This is followed by a summary of the employment and prosecution history of convicted perpetrators, acknowledging that management failings almost certainly contributed towards creating an environment in which dangerous and dysfunctional cultures could and did develop, with serious consequences for the Council’s ability to safeguard and protect children in its care (section 6).

Section 7 of the statement sets out the omissions and mistakes that were endemic to Lambeth’s approach to internal visits and inspections of its children’s homes. By March 1993, when the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) inspected three Lambeth children’s homes, the required Member and officer visits were not being undertaken regularly. To compound this, Lambeth’s own Inspection Unit failed to inspect the Council’s children’s homes, placing the Council in breach of its statutory responsibilities. The Council accepts that the level of oversight provided by elected Members and senior managers in relation to internal inspections and visits to children’s homes was inadequate.

In Section 8 of the statement she discusses Lambeth’s approach to equal opportunities, particularly in relation to race, and the consequent impact upon service delivery, recognising a paradox at the heart of Lambeth’s approach to such issues. Despite being ahead of other local authorities in its commitment to try to combat inherent racism within society in the 1970s and early 1980s, by the late 1980s and early 1990s Lambeth’s progressive equal opportunities policies and procedures did not result in improved practice within children’s homes, particularly in relation to meeting the needs of black children and their families.

In her statement Ms Hudson then goes on to address the recruitment, vetting and development of staff working in Lambeth’s children’s homes, accepting that Lambeth’s failings in relation to consistently carrying out the necessary checks, and inconsistencies in following its own recruitment procedures, would have increased the risks to children in its care. The high turnover of senior managers led to informal ‘acting up’ to senior roles, creating instability which exacerbated Lambeth’s recruitment difficulties. In the late 1980s and early 1990s Lambeth’s policy of waiving qualification requirements for field social workers, although ensuring a workforce that better reflected a diverse local community, resulted in a proportion of the unqualified workforce that did not necessarily have the skills required to identify and respond to signs of child sexual abuse. External inspections by the SSI in the early 1990s also highlighted a lack of professional supervision of field and residential social work staff, compounding the overall poor quality of practice. The Council recognises that there were failures in the arrangements in place for recruitment, vetting, training and supervision of staff during the time when Lambeth operated its own children’s homes.

In Section 11 Ms Hudson summarises the history of Lambeth’s Fostering Service, including a recognition that by the late 1970s Lambeth had proportionately fewer children in foster care than other local authorities. It also describes the significant failure of the Fostering Service to carry out pre-approval checks of foster carers in the 1980s and 1990s, and summarises available information about allegations against foster carers. It is acknowledged that there were significant failures in the Fostering Service.

The statement also covers what the Council has been able to discover about any deaths of, or serious injuries to, children in its care placed in children’s homes (section 12). Before considering the internally commissioned investigations and inquiries, the statement acknowledges Lambeth’s inability to put into practice the learning from the various national inquiries and reports relating to children in care published between 1987 and 2000 (section 13).

Lambeth commissioned at least eight separate internal inquiries between 1985 and 2000. The first of these, Ivy House, consisted of two management investigations and a formal inquiry into allegations of child sexual abuse in relation to a child who received respite care at Ivy House in 1985 (section 15). The next report was the Investigation into Allegation of Child Sexual Abuse’ which looked into allegations of child sexual abuse at Monkton Street children’s home in 1987 (section 16). The ‘Report of the Enquiry into South Vale Assessment Centre,’ otherwise known as the Zephyrine Report, followed in January 1990. This Report investigated the operation and management of South Vale, including allegations of racism, sexism, poor childcare practice and inadequate management. The Report made a number of recommendations, including the temporary closure of South Vale (section 17).

‘An Independent Inquiry Commissioned by the London Borough of Lambeth’, referred to as the Clough Report was published in 1993. This Report considered issues surrounding the employment of a convicted offender and the management of the care of two boys he had applied to foster. Lambeth’s conclusion from reading this Report is that staff interests were prioritised over children’s needs. (Section 20)

The ‘Investigation into Alleged Breaches of the Council Equal Opportunities Policy in the Housing Directorate’, known as the Harris Report, including allegations about pornographic material being circulated among Housing officers and elsewhere. The Report, published in 1993, demonstrated an oppressive culture within the Housing Directorate, including failure to address serious allegations of harassment, particularly against women and black staff. This Report sheds light on the dysfunction and wider culture in Lambeth at the relevant time. (Section 23)

This was followed by the ‘Inquiry Report of Miss Elizabeth Appleby QC’, known as the Appleby Report, published in 1995, which exposed the dysfunctions which existed within Lambeth Council during the 1980s and early 1990s. The Appleby Report reveals a catalogue of systemic structural, cultural, financial and organisational failings, which partly explain why Lambeth Council was incapable for a lengthy period of time of making improvements, and provides evidence of a prevailing culture which protected staff to the detriment of service delivery. Appleby referred to Lambeth at that time as, “an appalling financial and administrative mess with non-existent or incompetent management” (Section 24)

The final report discussed in this section is the ‘Events and Circumstances Associated with Changes to Services at a Home Providing Residential Respite Care for Children with Disabilities’, known as the Evans Report (2000), which investigated events at Chestnut Road respite home for children with disabilities. The Evans Report highlighted the failure of Lambeth’s own Inspection Unit to inspect Chestnut Road children’s home, and raised serious concerns about the perceived conflict between the necessity to protect the needs of children and the employment rights of staff.

The reports generated by these investigations and inquiries demonstrate that Lambeth was determined to explore the reasons underlying service failure but despite the numerous useful recommendations, there is little evidence to demonstrate that these recommendations were consistently implemented. It is therefore unclear what Lambeth learned from these eight reports as the Council appears to have been unable to put in place, and sustain, the changes required to keep children safe.


The Lambeth of 2019 is a very different place to that of the 1970s, or even the 1990s. Child care practice has moved on considerably over this time, both nationally and in Lambeth. Since 2015 the Council has been on a steady improvement journey; the Lambeth of today is fully committed to learning the lessons of the past and doing everything in its power to reduce the risk of child sexual abuse to all children, including as corporate parent to children in the care of the council (section 34).


The review of the documents discussed in this statement has led the Council to conclude that the institutional failings within it can be categorised into four overarching themes. These are:

Firstly, the lack of leadership and failure of governance at both political and officer levels, compounded by the political legacy, financial pressures and the rapid turnover of senior staff as evidenced in the Appleby, Harris and the Barratt reports.

The second theme is the overall poor quality of practice, both within Social Services for children and more broadly across the Council, in such areas as Personnel Management/Human Resources. This is illustrated by the South Vale Report, the Barratt Report, and others, as well as examples of failures to discipline staff properly.

The third theme is that of the inadequate recruitment and vetting practices adopted by Lambeth over the years when the Council operated its own children’s homes, as documented in the Clough Report among others.

The final theme is the Council’s inability to implement the recommendations from investigations, inquiries and inspections, leading to failure to effect any meaningful change.

Lambeth Council apologises for these historical failings, recognising that the problems of leadership and governance, and consequent poor quality of practice that characterised this period in its history, had lasting consequences for many of the children In its care.


02 July 2020 – Dr Anne Worthington, Former Social Worker in Lambeth Council

Dr Anne Worthington discusses the difficulties facing social service departments in the 1980’s and particularly criticises the police who she states, with hindsight, were ill equipped to deal with allegations of child sexual abuse and particularly children who suffered from learning difficulties. She discusses incidents at Monkton Street and Ivy House.

03 July 2020 – Dr Josephine Kwhali, Former Day Care Officer and Assistant Director for Children and Young People for Lambeth Council.

Dr Josephine Kwhali discusses her employment as a black woman in Lambeth in the 1980’s and the difficulties she and others faced. She discusses incidents at Monkton Street and Ivy House. She also discusses the council’s employment of Michael John Carroll and criticises the police and the council for not being aware of his conviction for sexual assault and criticises the council for their attitude towards his conviction when they became aware, which she states was minimised.

03 July 2020 – Milius Palayiwa, Senior Officer in London Borough of Lambeth 1984 -1993.

In 1986/87 Milius Palayiwa was the Chair of the committee which prepared the Interim Report which reviewed the policies, procedures and practices in place at the time. It is often referred to as the Theaker Report. This report was never published. Milius Palayiwa criticises Lambeth council for this and notes that the police and/or the Social Services Inspectorate could have intervened and did not do so.

03 July 2020 – Robin Osmond, Director of Social Services, Lambeth Council (1977-1988).

This statement has not yet been published. As soon as it has been published a summary will be provided to you.

03 July 2020 – Phyllis Dunipace – Labour Councillor 1986-1990; Chair of Social Services Committee 1986 – 1988; Deputy Leader of the Council 1989-1990; Advisory teacher in Education Dept 1994-1997.

Phyllis Dunipace discusses events which took place between 1986 and 1990 when she was a Councillor. She discusses the difficulties facing social service departments in the 1980’s and the concerns that Councillors had about the quality of social work at the time. She also discusses incidents that took place at Monkton Street, Ivy House, Angell Road and her knowledge of Michael John Carroll.




On 2nd July 2020 he Inquiry heard from Dr Anne Worthington, Former Social Worker in Lambeth Council.

A summary of Dr Anne Worthington’s witness statement, dated 15 May 2020, is below:

Dr Worthington’s statement discusses her involvement in events associated with Ivy house and Monkton Street. She indicates that the Inquiry specifically asked her about events between 1985 and 1987.

The statement discusses how, in Dr Worthington’s view, the council and the police responded to allegations of abuse. She did not have the impression that the allegations were minimised or dismissed. Dr Worthington states that she had no concerns or knowledge about possible inappropriate involvement in ‘political figures or freemasons; about ‘paedophile rings’ or the distribution of pornography; about bullying or harassment or about corruption generally either during her employment with Lambeth social services or subsequently. She states with hindsight that in those days the police were ill equipped to deal with such an allegation by a person with learning disabilities.

She describes how the social services team were similar to any other local authority at the time and in that the culture was relatively hierarchical. She describes how there was a tendency for those needing support from the council to be seen as objects of concern rather than citizens treated as valued customers. She describes how social workers, like herself, were relatively junior and their role was to advocate for, and be on the side of, those they supported. She acknowledges that time has moved on since then. Dr Worthington describes how in the 1980s most council employees were white and that this was not addressed at an institutional level. This is despite the population of Lambeth being very ethnically diverse. She describes a significant amount of racism. She described how the power dynamics between men and women were less balanced than today. How those with severe learning difficulties and problems communicating were less understood and how council staff would not have come across profound learning difficulties in challenging behaviours that were common at Ivy house and Monkton Street. She does not doesn’t recall any specific training in being the recipient of allegations about the sexual abuse of children with disabilities.

She goes on to discuss the management inquiry’s at both Ivy House and Monkton house which arose following allegations of child abuse, along with disciplinary proceedings, but is able to provide much information about these topics due to her limited involvement.

Day 5 – 03 July

The Inquiry will hear from Dr Josephine Kwhali, Former Day Care Officer and Assistant Director for Children and Young People for Lambeth Council.

A summary of Dr Josephine Kwhali’s witness statement is below:

Dr Josephine Kwhali started work for Lambeth social services in 1983. She gives an overview of her experience as an employee of Lambeth. She discusses how she was one of the new black staff members recruited following the publication of the Scarman Report in November 1981 into the causes of the ‘Brixton Riots’ earlier that year. She indicates she therefore felt she faced challenges due to her race. She sensed the attitude of the ‘old guard, new guard’. She describes the period being a difficult one politically and recalls 31 Councillors being expelled and a large group of new and largely inexperienced councillors elected in their place. Social workers and their managers devoted considerable time to hearing evidence at the inquiry into the death of Tyra Henry and responding to the report findings and subsequent press interest. She describes therefore competing pressures. She describes feeling ill equipped and unsupported to meet demands. She decided to leave Lambeth and take a break from the profession.

The statement discusses how in the 1980s, which is when she first into practice, child sexual abuse by staff members was relatively unheard of and how child abuse did not feature in social work qualifying courses.

She describes how there was a hierarchy within the Council and an environment where decisions by those in power would not have been challenged your questioned. She talks about the unease she felt and about her concerns which included unqualified staff, entrenched attitudes, lack of training opportunities and limited accountability. She describes the 80’s as being a ‘sea of change’ within social services with more issues being exposed and changes being made.

Dr Josephine Kwhali discusses the allegation of sexual abuse that happened in Ivy house and describes how the initial inquiry was inadequate which led to a second inquiry. She was asked to join the panel during the second inquiry she describes how the second panel 100% believed that the young person had been abused within Ivy House but this was not the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

Dr Josephine Kwhali goes on to discuss issues surrounding Angell Road and Michael John Carroll, noting that she was not aware that he had a schedule 1 conviction.

She questions why Carroll’s schedule 1 offence was not identified by the police at his appointment and why reporting systems were so poor as to allow schedule 1 offender to secure work in childcare initially.  She discusses how, when senior members of Lambeth Council became aware of Carroll’s conviction it was played down as a minor and historical offence.

The Inquiry heard from Milius Palayiwa, Senior Officer in London Borough of Lambeth

1984 -1993.

A summary of Milius Palayiwa’s witness statement is below:

This witness statement discusses the set up of ‘An Independent Inquiry: To Review the Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Establishments run by the London Borough of Lambeth’ (The Independent Inquiry). This report, which was unpublished, is often referred to as the Theaker report.

In describes how the independent inquiry was set up in 1986 by the Chief Executive following the Ivy house case. Millius Palayiwa was the Chair of this Inquiry.

Describes how in the first instance the inquiry limited itself to reviewing policies, procedures and practices in place at the time. The result the a production of an Interim Report that dealt solely on reviewing the procedures for dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse and establishments run by the London Borough of Lambeth.

The witness statement discusses that there was a failure to adopt and implement the recommendations of the report and how this was regrettable a missed great opportunity. He outlines his understanding of why the report was withdrawn which was essentially objections from other committee members. He has recently come to understand that a conflict of interest was raised. He states that both the police and the Social Services Inspectorate in 1987 could have asked and put pressure on the London Borough of Lambeth to release the report and ask for an explanation for the non-release of the same.

The Inquiry heard from Robin Osmond, Director of Social Services, Lambeth Council (1977-1988).


The Inquiry heard from Phyllis Dunipace – Labour Councillor 1986-1990; Chair of Social Services Committee 1986 – 1988; Deputy Leader of the Council 1989-1990; Advisory teacher in Education Dept 1994-1997.

A summary of Phyllis Dunipace’s witness statement is below:

She explains her role as Councillor in Lambeth Council and events which took place between 1986 and 1990. She discusses how there were a number of issues at that time but particularly the Council was struggling to deal with race issues following the ‘Brixton Riots’ in 1981 and 1985 and the murder of Tyra Henry, who died as a child in the care of Lambeth on 01 September 1984.

Phyllis Dunipace discusses how Councillors were concerned about the quality of social work practice and were keen to promote fostering and adoption rather than Looked after Children being in children’s homes. She describes poor systems and processes and how Lambeth, as a Local Authority, had a poor reputation which meant that it was difficult to recruit and train staff with appropriate level of qualifications. She was in favour of recruiting unqualified staff and giving them limited roles with supervision and training. She wanted there to be better training of staff so that allegations of child sexual abuse would be handled appropriately.

The witness statement covers abuse which took place at Monkton Street, Ivy House and Angell Road.

In relation to Monkton Street she describes how she has been asked about her recollection of investigations that Lambeth carried out relating to abuse at Monkton Street. She recalls being concerned about the physical examination of the children by the police surgeon which could be construed as a form of abuse of young people with severe learning difficulties. She recalls how the police and the council did not have a strong partnership at that time.

In relation to Ivy House she notes that the investigation had to be carried out twice as there was great concern within the community about the outcome.

She goes on to discuss Angell Road and her knowledge of Micheal Caroll. Phyllis Dunipace states that she had no knowledge of his convictions and his failure to disclose his conviction but acknowledges that social services should have known about his conviction.

































Lemn Sissay – An Inspiration

Lemn Sissay – an inspiration.

Imagine a child taken illegally from its mother in the late 1960s. This child was given to white devout Christian parents and told he is theirs. The child grows up in this family, is charming and extremely likeable. Like all early teenagers the child breaks a few minor rules – taking biscuits without asking – nothing major. Without warning the Christian parents decide this black child doesn’t fit into their family and is told to leave. The child is forced to leave the only family he has known, the only neighbourhood, friends and school he has known. The child is not found a loving, nurturing foster family but is sent to a series of residential children’s home where the rules are strict and the unwritten rules of bullying and racism from other children and staff alike have to be endured. Imagine how this child would feel faced with assaults, racism and neglect on top of having been torn away from his family. As if this were not enough, whilst in care this child discovers his name was changed by the council.

Would you fight back ? Would you have ended up in trouble ? Would you have seen your life chances as narrowed ? Would you have given up ? I would.

Lemn Sissay didn’t. He somehow found super-human levels of tolerance. He didn’t get into trouble with the law. He “kept his nose clean” and emerged from this ordeal to fashion himself into a writer, poet, performer and broadcaster.

Where did he find his tolerance ? Was it from his religious upbringing ? Was it a desire to rise above personal insults ? Is it from his philosophical take on life ? I’m not sure but he has some mercurial element that made him impervious to stuff that would knock us mere mortals off course.

Lemn has devoted a large part of his substantial creative talents and career to finding out more of his story and trying to make sense of it. Some if his notable publications are his Child of the State TED talk; his desert Island Discs of October 2015; his poetry, his plays; his memoirs My Name is Why; and The Report (Lemn listening for the first time to his psychological report on stage in front of a packed house at the Royal Court Theatre). He is a thoughtful advocate for the rights of children in care. He has set up the Gold from the Stone Foundation to provide Christmas dinners for care leavers. I recommend you search out all these inspiring works.

I had the privilege of helping Lemn explore the legal process. By 2015 he had plucked up the courage to get hold of his social care records from Wigan Council. He has published some of them in his memoirs My Name is Why. Lemn asked me if there was anything he could do. We poured over the records and discovered how, right from the start, the council had taken him from his Mother illegally. Lemn himself set up a unique meeting at Manchester Town Hall attended by the leader of Wigan Council, The head of Children’s services and the Chief Executive. Lemn wanted acknowledgement from the council that :-

  • It was wrong for the council to prevent him from being returned to his Mother when she repeatedly requested this in 1967;
  • That it was wrong for the social worker and foster parents to change his name;
  • That is was wrong for the Council to enter this illegal arrangement with the foster parents, that he was insufficiently supervised; that the issue of race was treated insensitively and that he was treated badly by the foster parents;
  • That it was inappropriate for Mr Sissay to have been placed at Woodend assessment centre;
  • That it was wrong to have provided him with no finances when he was forced to leave care at the age of 18.

Lemn not only got the meeting but was given unreserved acknowledgements and apologies on all these five requests. I hadn’t previously attended such a meeting with high level council personnel present. Rebuttals, blanking and defensive positions are the usual response when I ask for such meetings or apologies from councils.

Lemn took the meeting with dignity and some relief. We chatted about next steps and decided we should press on with seeking financial redress.

Lemn’s career has been successful. He has been well known for many years but has worked very, very hard at his craft. The opportunities open to his Mother’s later children were closed to him. He had been unable to progress through decent education due to the appalling treatment he had to endure from Wigan Council’s social workers. This meant Lemn lost opportunities and its right that he was compensated.

In 2017 I started the legal proceedings for him and on 17th April 2018 after a marathon 10 hour negotiation in London involving solicitors, barristers, and Wigan Council officials we agreed terms. It has been a privilege to work for Lemn. It is a privilege to work for all disadvantaged children. We all deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Lemn got neither as a child.

I particularly like the line from Lemn when he says : “Children in care should be treated so well that middle class parents are queueing up to get their child in.”

David Greenwood (Solicitor privileged to work for Lemn and other care leavers).