Are Male sex victims likely to report more than women?

In the Daily Mirror today the headline is that male sex victims are likely to report more than women - this is the link - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/male-sex-victims-more-likely-3062168#.UuZ4u_tFBpg The articles goes on to give the following stats:-

1. 16 per cent of women and 8 per cent of men ­questioned had been victims of a sexual crime.
2. Half the men reported the attack to police, compared with just over a quarter of the women.
3.  The poll of 1,561 women and 1,419 men by ITV’s This Morning found that one in three people know someone who has had their drink spiked
4. Nearly two thirds think celebrities “get off more lightly” in court. 
5. Almost half say sentences for drug possession are not tough enough
6. 54 per cent want the return of the death penalty.
7. One in three say they should be told where paedophiles live.
8. Nearly three quarters believe prisoners get too many luxuries.

About 1,000 people are convicted of rape each year out of an average 3,000 cases brought, according to figures from the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics.

Many of the statistics are old hat and of no surprise to me or, no doubt, any of the readers of the Daily Mirror

The one statistic that I find surprising is that men are more likely to report abuse than women. Accepting for one moment that women who are abused may be in relationships with their abuser, which no doubt acts as a supressor out of fear, in general terms, females are more willing to disclose how they feel than women.

Here at Abney Garsden, we specialise in assisting the victims of abuse. We find that Male survivors of abuse have often kept their abuse a closely guarded secret until something triggers them into doing something about it. We then have the privelige of being the first person they have ever told about their abuse.

Men often display much more damage than women according to psychologists because they have internalised all their negative feelings, and not been able to disclose anything due the shame of the allegations they make, which usuall involve a homosexual relationship with an older male care worker/religious leader/teacher when an infant. They often fear that if they tell anyone, they will be rejected, outcast, and shunned by their friends and family, hence the silence for so many years.

William Roache is on Trial not Ken Barlow

William Roache

The latest information on the "Ken Barlow" trial is that the jury are to put out of their mind who the actor plays on TV, and should try the case according to the evidence.

As I am a lawyer who specialises in abuse cases on behalf of victims, the topic of celebrity abusers comes up in conversation quite often.

It is quite obvious that most of the public make a judgement instantly on whether or not he is guilty or innocent. That opinion is obviously based upon what they hear or see in the media, coupled with what they already know about the person already.

How can any jury who has watched William Roache play Ken Barlow every week make a judgement on his guilt or innocence and insulate themselves from the world of soap operas?

A classic example of pre-judging guilt and innocence based upon someone's public persona is Rolf Harris. Several allegations have been made against him yet he is not the sort of person most members of the public will deem to be a sex offender. He has painted portraits of the queen, done programs about animals, and recorded various catchy tunes which have appeared in the hit parade.

Ken Barlow on Coronation Street is in intelligent, well meaning, calm, yet philanderous person who has produced some rather unstable children, one of whom is an alcoholic, and the other of whom has spent time in prison for murder. What is the real William Roache like? Will the jury judge him on the evidence, or what they know of him.

Take the celebrities from the Street who have appeared in Court so far - Kevin Webster or to give him his real name Michael Le Vell was acquitted of all charges, and made a speech outside Court thanking everyone for supporting him and saying he was going for a drink.Did the jury try the case on the evidence, or what they already thought they knew about the Defendant from his appearance on TV? We will never know. Certainly the alleged victims of the alleged child sex offences will be devastated by the result.

What would be the position if someone who has played the parts of evil villains on TV appeared before the Crown Court alleged to be a sex offender? Could the jury dispel their preconceived opinion that he was an evil villain from their mind? An interesting conundrum.

Stuart Hall went public during his trial saying that the whole process was causing him immense grief, and ruining his life. He denied the offences completely. He then turned turkey, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced. The CPS then went back to Court to ask for and were granted an increased sentence.

Certainly celebrities have the advantage over those without any experience of speaking in public in that:-

1. They have training in diction and pretending to be someone else.
2. They have their reputation with the public to use to their advantage.
3. They have fans who will write to them saying they support them. This no doubt gives them confidence and more self belief.

On the other hand

1. They have a much greater reputation to protect than others.
2. The media will be all over their case trying to put as much of their trial in the public eye as possible, which can be a good or bad thing depending on what is reported.
3. If they lose the trial, that is the end of their career.
4. They will be under much more pressure to win their case than the average criminal defendant.

Personally I am tempted to say that it is impossible to try a celebrity fairly. Although the jury will try to simply examine the evidence, when it comes to some judgement upon which they are unsure, it is almost impossible not to let their preconceived ideas of what the actor who plays the part is like on TV cloud their opinion.

Let us hope their is a fair trial of William Roache. I am sure that is what all the lawyers and the judge are trying to achieve.

Maybe we should have a similar system to the States where there are jury vetting agents, cross examination of jurors, and so on. Whilst the judge does ask questions to make sure the jury are not biased at all, the comment by the judge in the recent trial tells a thousand tales about the dangers which are unavoidable in this case.

Will the victims claim compensation after the case, or will they have had enough after the criminal trial and want to put the whole thing behind them? Only time will tell.

Abuse Enquiry announced in Northern Ireland

Sir Anthony Hart

Today's announcement that there will be an enquiry into abuse at care homes in Northern Ireland does not surprise me, in that I have been aware of its intentions for many months.

The enquiry is an opportunity for the victims of abuse ate Northern Irish Care Homes to be heard. It is fundamentally important that the many years of silence is broken and that the victims are listened to.

In his opening remarks, the chairman of the inquiry, Sir Anthony Hart, said it would try to establish if abuse in children's homes was systemic.

He said he hoped those who had given evidence to the inquiry "will have the satisfaction of knowing that their experiences are being listened to and investigated".

Sir Anthony said many of the witnesses had told the inquiry that when they made complaints in the past they had been ignored.

He said where the inquiry believes criminal offences have taken place it will pass the evidence onto the police.

At the office, QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden have dealt with several complaints of abuse at Northern Irish Care Homes, which have proceeded independently of the enquiry through the civil courts.

The enquiry has clearly been announced after vociferous efforts have been rightfully made by victims of abuse, but more importantly as a direct reaction to the enquiries in Southern Ireland, where there were two types of enquiry explained in more detail on our Irish Survivor's site

1. The Irish Commission - this sat in Dublin and heard evidence from victim - much like the Northern Irish enquiry just announced. It had no power to prosecute or punish anyone, but could refer criminal allegations to the police.
2. The Irish Redress Board ("RIRB") now closed - was opened in 2002 and closed in 2005. It was set up to pay compensation and legal costs to the victims of abuse by institutions connected with the Irish State - the entire care and school system was set up in partnership with the Church and various voluntary bodies. This followed an apology by the Taoiseach of Ireland for the abuse committed by the state upon its children whilst in its care.
   The RIRB used a point scoring system in order to determine the amount of compensation offered.

It has been announced by BBC online that various homes will be investigated by the Commission

Institutions under investigation

Local authority homes:

• Lissue Children's Unit, Lisburn
• Kincora Boys' Home, Belfast
• Bawnmore Children's Home, Newtownabbey

Juvenile justice institutions:

• St Patrick's Training School, Belfast
• Lisnevin Training School, County Down
• Rathgael Training School, Bangor

Secular voluntary homes:

•  Barnardo's Sharonmore Project, Newtownabbey
• Barnardo's Macedon, Newtownabbey

Catholic Church-run homes:

• St Joseph's Home, Termonbacca, Londonderry
• Nazareth House Children's Home, Derry
• Nazareth House Children's Home, Belfast
• Nazareth Lodge Children's Home, Belfast
• De La Salle Boys' Home, Kircubbin, County Down

Whilst the Commission will hear and investigate valuable evidence, it remains to be seen what further powers the body will have.

It was said that the Redress Board was set up in the Southern Ireland as a more efficient alternative to the Courts. If the victims were expected to take all their cases through the Eire Courts system, it would have taken many years to process their claims, as the Court would become clogged up with all the allegations.

The institutions were approached, and agreed to part with considerable sums of money by way of a contribution to the cost of setting up and running the Irish Redress Board.

It is regrettable than no alternative to the court system appears, to date, to have been set up in Northern Ireland, laudable though the Commission obviously is.

Caldicott Prep School convicts Headmaster but ignores previous conviction.

PRESS RELEASE ISSUED 18th December 2013

Peter Wright in Court

Leading child abuse solicitors, QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden have launched an appeal for evidence which may help to support a claim of sexual abuse by a former headmaster at Caldicott School in Buckinghamshire.  The 83 year old former headmaster, Peter Wright was yesterday convicted of multiple sex offences against pupils at the school.  Caldicott was attended by a string of high profile individuals including Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Andrew Strauss, the former England cricket captain.

The firm of solicitors are asking members of the public, witnesses and victims to come forward with any information that may help them pursue a claim for compensation against convicted Peter Wright.  Their client, 60 year old Tom Perry from Buckinghamshire who was sexually abused by Peter Wright when he was just a 12 year old school boy, has been fighting for justice for over ten years.  Mr Perry, who was sent to Caldicott at the age of 8 in 1963 says the sexual attentions by former headmaster, Peter Wright, began when he was vulnerable, missing family life and craving intimacy and kindness.  In 2003 the former headmaster was charged with 16 offences against five boys at Caldicott during the 1960s, but the ruling judge halted the case, on the grounds that it was an unfair trial due to the historical nature of the abuse, and set Wright free.

Peter Garsden, solicitor representing Tom Perry said: “I am delighted for all the victims of abuse at Caldicott who were abused by Peter Wright, convicted yesterday of various sex offences against former pupils. They will feel relieved that after many years, they have finally been believed and achieved some semblance of justice. Some of them, however, did not have the benefit of a conviction in their favour for legal and technical reasons. I act for one of them. We will now proceed with all speed to make claims for compensation against Mr Wright, and any others who may be involved.

The school were, of course, guilty of ignoring complaints and misleading the authorities in the past that could have stopped the abuse from continuing. I am anxious for any former pupils or staff, who can give any useful evidence of what happened to come forward, even if they were not involved in the case. Any information will be of use to our civil case.”

The date for the sentencing hearing has been confirmed as 6th February 2014.

This case is yet another example of how mandatory reporting could have prevented abuse from taking place over such a long period of time unchecked. The safeguarding the school have now is highly praised, designed, perhaps, in response to the unfolding scandal that has beset the school

Also of interest is the fact that Peter Wright was prosecuted unsuccessfully in 2003 on the basis of several complaints made by other boys who went to the school. The presiding Judge Connor decided that there was no basis for the prosecution to go forward because of the age of the allegations, and other matters. Curiously, a different judge, 10 years later decided that the case could now proceed, but on different allegations.

The prosecution is a testament to the many victims who have campaigned tirelessly to get the case back in Court. This time much more effort and resources were assigned to the case by the police, no doubt owing to the change in police attitude to these types of case.

A further side issue relates to an allegation that the Defence knowingly misled the Court back in 2003, thus entitling the victims to have the previous stay of the 2003 proceedings lifted.

We will await with interest what happens to the case at the time of sentencing, and beyond.

Any witnesses should contact QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden either by email or via our website http://www.abuselaw.co.uk/ 

Proclaim Practice Management Software - Abney Garsden McDonald Solicitors

Peter talks about his experiences with the Eclipse Legal Proclaim Case Management system, and the benefits of efficiency which it brings to his practise, particularly in the fields of Legal Aid. He discusses his "paperless office" and how Proclaim enables its introduction with ease.

The Police interview of Jimmy Savile shows what a manipulative paedophile he was

Savile with OBE

When you read the recently released interview by Surrey Police in 2009 of Jimmy Savile with the hindsight we have now, it is almost a textbook exercise in the manipulative powers of the paedophile. At the time, he was Sir Jimmy Savile OBE who gave heaps of cash to charity, and did benedictory work for the disadvantaged with friends in high places and influence with media and politicians alike. So how could anybody possibly believe that throughout his life, he abused under age girls, and boys?

Well, what are the necessary tools which a paedophile needs to hoodwink, groom and then abuse a child?
Fundamentally, child abuse is an opportunity and desire by a sex offender to abuse whatever power he has to entrap a victim.

1. Charm - no child will go off with a dirty old man in a mack.
2. Persuasion - but not in a dominant or bombastic way - with guile and intrigue, possibly some humour.
3. Manipulative - he has to have this in spades. Not only does he manipulate his victim, but also all those around the child who might protect him/her from harm. So how does the manipulation work?

Now let us go back to the Savile interview. How does "Sir" Jimmy manipulate his interviewer at the police force who were interviewing him?

1. Savile had persuaded them not to interview him at the police station, which presumably was in Surrey, but rather on his home turf at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, where he was more in control of the situation than he would have been if he had been interviewed at a police station in Surrey. The HMIC said it was wrong to allow Savile to choose where and when his ‘ineffective’ interview took place.
2. He quickly takes over the conversation, in order to avoid having to answer difficult questions by simply making a speech, which was nothing more than a self image boasting rant, designed to convince his interviewers that all the serious allegations of sexual abuse did not amount to anything they should even investigate.
3. His tone is overtly casual, relaxed and fluent, but has an undercurrent of malevolence and threats, which are intended to hint at how much power he has to make life difficult for the police if they misguidedly decided to prosecute him. 
4. He says he has friends in high places not only with the police in Leeds whom he shares his threatening letters. He implies they share his view that these girls are just after some money by making false allegations against him.
5. He refers to the girls as midges who chase him, and  "you can brush them away like midges and it's not much of a price to pay for the lifestyle." What greater image of ultimate power is there than a large human swatting a midge. This just makes him sound more powerful.
6. He refers in the interview to being able to sue newspapers who cross him, or indeed anyone who gets in his way. He even suggests that they police could end up taken by Savile to the Old Bailey if they are not careful.
7. Ironically he emphasises his power, belittles his victims saying they are like flies who buzz around him for attention, whom he can pick and choose at will by virtue of his incredibly powerful celebrity status.
8. In typical paedophile fashion, he blames the victims for lieing and simply being interested in his celebrity status and money, which they need for "Christmas". He says his blackmail and threats do get worse at the season of "goodwill".

If one were to write a textbook on how to be a successful paedophile in complete control of everything around you, to enable you to abuse children at will, then the life of Savile and this police interview are a good but frightening example of how to go about it.

Abuse of power is a very dangerous thing. Countries have been dictated and fallen because of its evil side effects. It is like any quality. In extremis it is frightening.

The case of Keanu Williams makes Mandatory Reporting more important

Keanu Williams was found dead with 37 injuries including bite marks, a fractured skull and a fist-sized tear in his stomach in January 2011. He was left for dead by his mother Rebecca Shuttleworth for over 18 hours because the injuries she had inflicted upon him could not be explained away.

On 25th June 2013 she was given a life sentence by Birmingham Crown Court and ordered to serve a minimum of 18 years. Her partner Luke Southerton was convicted of cruelty but cleared of murder.

The serious case review will be published at 11am today but is embargoed until 11am to a locked room of journalists in order to make sure it is not leaked.

I am about to go on BBC News 24 & Radio 5 to get the message across. Hopefully we can divert the media to dealing with the point, and encourage politicians to change the law.

From reports of the criminal trial it is likely that it will be said that a lot of opportunities will be missed by the services to:-

1. Take him into care and away from his parents by Social Services.
2. Report obvious signs of abuse so as to avoid the death which occurred.
3. Police, Social Services, his school, and the NHS apparently all had contact with him, but only saw pieces of the jigsaw. The bits were never joined up until his mother finally exploded and beat him to death.

Mandatory Reporting is the obvious answer

1. Make failure to report actual or suspected abuse a criminal offence
2. Limit it to professionals carrying out a regulated activity ie. looking after children.
3. Bring England into line with the USA where it has been the law since 1963, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Northern & Southern Ireland, and many other countries.

We have a petition you can sign -  http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/educationgovuk-introduce-law-requiring-adults-working-with-children-to-report-alleged-abuse-mandatenow