Mandatory Reporting - the latest

Picture courtesy of Nick Ballon of the Guardian

Interest in our campaign of mandatory reporting is slowly gathering momentum - in summary we are pushing government to make it a criminal offence to fail to report abuse that someone is aware of taking place to a child. We have narrowed the offence to those professionals whose job it is to look afer children. You can sign our petition here. So far we have nearly 2000 signature.

It is illegal in most commonwealth countries - Canada, & Australia, as well as Argentina, Denmark, Finland, Spain, Sweden, USA, and now the Republic of Ireland, which has recently held a referendum found to be in overwhelming support of the new law. In these countries, if you do not report abuse you are aware of it is a crminal offence.

Louise Tickle of the Guardian wrote this excellent article on the subject, which is centred around the recent appalling case of Nigel Leat who abused girls at Hillside School under the noses of teachers. It is entitled "Sex abuse in schools: the parents who want a change to the law." Complaints were made of the abuse to the headmaster, who did not pass them onto the police or social services. Leat hoodwinked everyone with his charm, and was not suspected for years. Leat was culpably negligent, and went to prison for an indefinite period of time two years ago.

A serious case review heavily criticised the headmaster for not passing on this complaints to either the police or the local authority. They allege that staff registered their complaints and made about 30 different complaints about Leat, 11 of which went to the headmaster. None of the complaints went anywhere. The point is that if the head had acted on any of the complaints, Leat would have been reported to the police, year earlier, and scores of children would have been saved from years of abuse.

No one wants to prosecute scores of headmasters/teachers, or social workers who turn a blind eye, because most of them are hardworking dedicated adults. It is the deterrent factor which will work on the minds in charge of child care, and encourage them to report.

Think about it - a private fee paying school with a good reputation has a child abuse problem. The headmaster knows that, if he reports the abuse to the LADO, there will be an investigation, scandal, and no one will want to send their children to the school. What does he do?

1. Report the paedophile and risk the downfall of his school, OR
2. Do nothing in the hope that the problem goes away. This way he keeps the pupils, his income, his, but the abuse carries on.

One can see that whichever he chooses there is a conflict. If he knows that if he doesn't report at the time, he will be committing a criminal offence and risk going to prison, then surely that will act on his mind and encourage him to contact the LADO (Local Authority Disclosure Officer).

The government line is that is not necessary to have a criminal sanction for this and that they can rely upon regulations, which provide for the very guidelines which are not being obeyed it seems. There are very clear guidelines which say abuse should always be reported to the police.

The teachers associations are one of the opponents. They do not want their members prosecuted and are lobbying the government hard not to legislate, but rather to relay on the internal guidelines. This was the attitude to the press for years, and look what has happened to them?

The Home Affairs Committee report into “Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming” was published on 10 June 2013 and Recommendation No.36 says :

We also recommend that the Government examine the Florida Protection of Vulnerable Persons Act passed in 2012 in order to ascertain whether the mandatory reporting of child abuse could, and should, be implemented in England and Wales.

One of our supporters Jame Rhodes, the pianist, will be broadcasting a fabulous programme on Channel 4 on 24th July at 10pm. He will be talking about his childhood abuse. He is advocating a change in the law to make mandatory reporting a criminal offence, and has said so on Twitter.

So once again SIGN OUR PETITION

Will Irish Magdalene Laundries Victims get the justice they deserve as compensation scheme is announced?

Magdalene Laundry at New Ross

The new controversial Magdalene Laundries compensation scheme was announced by the Irish Government last week for all the badly treated women at the hands of the religious congregations which ran them for many years.

The sequence of events which led to the announcement is the pinnacle of many years of hard campaigning by the Magdalene women for justice they dearly deserve.

Thousands of women and girls were forced into unpaid labour at the Catholic-run workhouses that operated for decades in the Republic of Ireland.

Last February saw the publication of the 1,000-page McAleese Report. It found that approximately 10,000 women and girls had been put into the laundries between the founding of the State and 1996 when the last one closed. The Irish government were implicated, and embarrassed by the findings.

Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny in a tearful address apologised in parliament for the "national shame" of the laundries after a report found that a quarter of the women were sent there by the Irish state.

The Irish government has agreed to pay between 35m and 58m euros (£30m to £50m) in redress to about 600 women. Out of respect for the needs and feelings of the victims one would have thought that the government would want medical evidence, and would assess the harm that was caused, in the usual way that compensation schemes work. So the more damage that was caused, the larger the figure awarded.

Not so with the Irish scheme. Mr Justice Quirke has recommended that the women in question should all receive cash payments in the range €11,500 (if their duration of stay was three months or less) to €100,000 (duration of stay of 10 years or more).

Judge Quirke’s other recommendations include:

• The Magdalene women should all be granted access without charge to a wide range of services (GP, hospital, drugs, dental counselling etc.) i.e. an enhanced medical card;
• All Magdalene women who have reached pensionable age should have an income equivalent to the State contributory pension;
• All Magdalene women who have not reached pensionable age should have an income from the State of €100 per week;
• The cash payments should be exempt from income and other taxes and should not be taken into account for the purposes of means testing social welfare or other entitlements and should not affect funding under sections 38 and 39 of the Health Act 2004;
• The creation of a dedicated unit to provide advice and support, assistance in meeting with the religious congregations, social opportunities to meet other such women and to provide for the creation and maintenance of a memorial park;
• The extension of the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009 so that persons are appointed to look after on an individual basis the best interests of Magdalene women;
• Any previous payments made to these women under the Residential Redress Scheme should not be taken into account

So the scheme has been made somewhat two dimensional and simplistic. Why? Somewhat naively to make it possible to avoid victims having to use lawyers to help them with their applications. The point is that if the victims were badly educated, then they will need help with the forms, and correspondence. They are also likely to be damaged by their experiences, and will want to avoid dealing with the details repeatedly. The same applies to people who do their own probate after a near relative has died. This serves as a constant reminder of the grief that is ever present.

The Irish Redress Scheme which is now closed encouraged lawyers to be involved and paid their fees for so doing. It recognised that due to a lack of education, literacy etc. the victims would need help. The Magalene Laundries should have been included in the Redress Scheme. If this mistake had not been made, then the victims would have been entitled to instruct a lawyer without charge.

What the motive is behind the Irish Government's determination to exclude lawyers this time, I don't know. It is an easy jibe to say that as a lawyer I would say that wouldn't I? I have been acting for the victims of abuse for nearly 20 years. I know how they struggle emotionally, and how much help they need. The process is painful in itself. They need the assistance of someone to support their emotional and legal needs.

What reaction has the scheme received from the survivors? Mixed. Some are welcoming it, and others angry that it isn't enough. Ex-resident Maureen Sullivan, from Magdalene Survivors Together, said her campaign group had "rejected the deal".She said the amount of money she personally would be entitled to through the redress scheme had not been worked out yet, but it was "not very much".

Abuse carries with it life long scars. It is wrong to award money based upon how long the women were in the laundries. One has to assess the medical effects on each person. It is not unusual of someone to sustain massive damage from one incident if they are particularly fragile, whereas others who suffer serious abuse can react in a particularly robust way. This crude method also disrespects the feelings of the victims, and does not treat them as individuals.

It is sad that a motive to save money has been cloaked in a dig at lawyers - nothing new there however. I have looked at the Irish Redress Board figures. Far from "much of the money" being spent on lawyers as reported by RTE News, the figures I saw for 2010 and 2011 showed that legal fees were  between 20 and 25% of the compensation awarded.

We will see what develops, as the figures have not been finalised yet. It is said that as many as 600 women have been sent letters. Let us hope that whether or not they seek help, they get the justice they truly deserve.

Is it wrong for a pupil to have a sexual relationship with a teacher?

Jeremy Forrest in Court

The title of the BBC News Magazine article which spurred me on to write this article is entitled "How often do abusive teacher-pupil relationships occur?" The recent prosecution of Jeremy Forrest has brought this discussion to the surface

A different breed of abuse allegations by girls who are in teenage years, and actually adored their abuser in a sense at the time is coming to the fore in view of the Savile cases. Teacher cases have been around for many years. Abuse of power by someone in a position of responsibility is always wrong, no matter who the dominant and servient characters are. The point is that the degree of acceptance by the public varies depending upon the facts. The following are examples:-

1. Male Teacher/Careworker on teenage boy of 14 involving grooming, anal abuse, and violence. The abuser used mental techniques to confuse the victim by one day being nice, and the next day ignoring him/her - obviously unacceptable and wrong.
2. Female Teacher/Careworker on teenage boy of 15, who claims he enjoyed being seduced and engaging in intercourse, but later realised how wrong it was, when approached by the police who were investigating allegations by other younger girls. Sometimes the police have to remind the survivor that what happened was a  crime, because he was under age at the time.
3. Male Teacher rapes girl of 15 - obviously wrong. Girl claims she fell in love with teacher and seduced him. Also wrong, but would she ever report the crime?
4. Female survivor of abuse aged 17 who was indecently assaulted by a celebrity pop star in an inappropriate way after a pop concert in 1968 when the age of consent was 18.

The list of examples are endless. The points are:-

1. All the examples are abusive and could result in prosecutions by the police now.
2. In some examples, the allegations may never result in a report to the police.
3. The public if asked in a random way would consider some allegations less blameworthy than others.
4. The attitude of the public will vary depending upon how well liked the celebrity is in their eyes.
5. Some "fans" of celebrities take the view that anyone who complains of abuse against their idol is at fault. Some of them send hate mail to anyone who takes action against the idol. One thinks of Michael Jackson.
6. There is a view which is gathering pace, and which, unfortunately, takes the side of the abuser saying that if the abuse took place many years ago it should remain in the past, as opposed to raking up old allegations and ruining the life of an "old man", who is ill.
7. So manipulative are abusers, that even many years later, the victims are still under his/her spell to the extent that they feel guilty in reporting the crime.
8. One imagines that all survivors will be angry at any sentence of imprisonment claiming it is insufficient. This is not true. Some actually feel sorry for the guilty man going to prison.

Many of the actors in Coronation Street are now in Court facing allegations of abuse. I just hope that the reaction of the public to such famous cases will not turn the wrong way, and discourage victims of abuse from coming forward.

To make disclosure even many years later can be cathartic, and help heal the wounds of the past. Abuse gives survivors a life sentence. Complaints can help them seek justice. One hopes that they will have the courage to come forward instead of taking their secret to their graves.

The Victim's Right to Review is definitely a good thing

I was on Radio 5 live at 7.05am this morning - when no doubt most of you were just waking up - to air my views on the newly announced "Victim's Right to Review". I was saying it was a good thing, and well overdue, whereas Helen Simms from Pannone was putting the case for the accused, whom, she feared, would suffer the uncertainty of whether or not he/she was going to be prosecuted hanging over his/her head for longer than was fair.

The new procedure is quite simple.The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has today launched a new policy that enshrines a victim’s right to request a review of any decision taken by the Crown Prosecution Service to not charge a suspect or to stop a prosecution. A 3 month consultation starts today

To quote from the press release

“The criminal justice system historically treated victims as bystanders and accordingly gave them little say in their cases. The decisions of prosecutors were rarely reversed because it was considered vital that decisions, even when later shown to be questionable, were final and could be relied upon. This approach was intended to inspire confidence, but in reality it had the opposite effect. Refusing to admit mistakes can seriously undermine public trust in the criminal justice system.

“It is now recognised by the criminal justice system that the interests of justice and the rights of the victim can outweigh the suspect's right to certainty. This is already reflected in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, but more needs to be done to correct this historic imbalance and ensure that the people affected by our decisions can hold us to account. Victims’ Right to Review is a major step in the right direction. It recognises that victims are active participants in the criminal justice process, with both interests to protect and rights to enforce.”

Any victim of crime, which includes bereaved family members or other representatives, can now ask the CPS to look again at a case following a decision not to charge, to discontinue proceedings or offer no evidence. Those entitled to an enhanced service under the Victims’ Code will also be offered a discussion with a prosecutor about the outcome of the review.

Mr Starmer continued: “These reviews will be an entirely fresh examination of all the evidence and circumstances of a case. If a charge is justified and there are no legal barriers to prosecution, the mistake will be put right. Making fair decisions and delivering justice is the priority.”

The point is that we have acted for hundreds if not thousands of victims of child abuse over the last 20 years. There comes a point in every victim's life, when it feels right to start talking about what happened to him/her. The appropriate time may be 30 to 50 years after the event. So distressing is the memory that it often remains a shameful secret for many years. During that time they can tell no one. All the painful thoughts and memories turn inwards, and cause harm to the victim.

So courageous and difficult is their decision, that it often unleashes torrents of pent up anger and hunger for justice. So when they approach the police, and are given hope that their story is going to be believed rather than rejected as a lie, it rekindles their faith in the system of authority, which previously they may have distrusted.

So imagine how the victim feels when they are told by the Crown Prosecution Service that they don't have a case, or that their hope of punishing their abuser has been dashed. They suspect foul play, corruption, or just give up again feeling deflated.

It is important that victims of abuse are heard and believed. Often they have tried to complain as a child, and been disbelieved, or called liars. In the worst cases, they may have been severely punished for speaking out, and/or been threatened by their abuser with terrifying fates. So having tried to complain once, they decide that it is not worth telling anyone about what happened to them. They thus remain silent for the next 30 to 50 year, or perhaps take the sad memories to their grave after, usually, leading a dysfunctional life.

Thus the journey of complaint in later life is a rocky one, and fraught with difficulty. Under the old regime, the victim's only route to overturn a decision not to prosecute was judicial review, which is expensive, and with cuts in Legal Aid, unlikely to receive funding.

Will the victim be entitled to an advocate at public expense to express his/her wishes? Doubtful.

To be fair the published guidelines do contemplate a fairly speedy process, so the thoughts of the accused remaining in limbo for too long are, to some extent, mitigated.

So this review process is to be welcomed as it gives the victim a voice. They often end up at our door, frustrated because they have been unable to achieve the justice they deserve and seek. We often cannot help them, but suggest the alternative route of a compensation claim. So maybe this new system will mean fewer claims.

Sadly, I suspect that the weakest, most badly damaged victims, will not have the energy to pursue a complaint or "right to review", and will retreat back into the hole from whence they came. Let us hope that the overstretched National Health Service can take up the need for mental health treatment that will inevitably follow. Let us also hope that the Welfare State will provide them with much needed financial support as they struggle to function in the difficult world of post disclosure.

Is the North Wales recent report into abuse a surprise?

North Wales Police warned sex offenders

The recent report into North Wales Children's Homes from Operation Pallial does not surprise me at all. I was involved with North Wales way back in the late 1990's. It was clear then that resources prevented the police from conducting as thorough an investigation as they would have liked.

It was thus no surprise that the victims thought there had been a cover up, when they maintained that abuse outside the children's home in a pub in Wrexham by visiting paedophiles had been ignored by the Waterhouse enquiry. The fact was that the enquiry did not have the budget to be as wide spread as it would have liked. They thus set the boundaries as abuse in children's homes rather than outside of the homes. This angered the victims and led them to believe that there was a definite attempt to cover up the abuse of well known individuals. The leakage of a name was fatal to the BBC as we all heard.

I am sitting in the Green Room at the BBC in Salford, having just done an interview as the President of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers. The interviewer was concerned that the victims are unlikely to get prosecutions and thus justice due to lack of resources. Will the message get through to the victims? I doubt it to be honest. Will they be angry? Definitely. They have had the courage to come forward, yet they will not be successful in getting justice before the criminal courts.

It is made clear in the BBC report that the enquiry led to "140 allegations of historical abuse between 1963 and 1992.

Seventy six new complainants have also come forward.

The claims centre on 18 homes involving offences against boys and girls aged between seven and 19.

A total of 84 suspected offenders have been named - 75 male and nine female. Of these, 16 have been named by more than one complainant.

It is believed that 10 of the 16 may be deceased."

The problem is of course that the abuse happened many years ago - like Savile - the alleged abuser is dead. Thus there is no possibility of a prosecution and no justice for the victims.

Unless they go to civil lawyers to claim compensation. It is common for Claimants to come forward because the police cannot prosecute. Their burden of proof is different to ours -

The Police - "Beyond reasonable doubt"
Civil Claims - "On the balance of probabilities"

We have brought many claims against the employers of abusers who are themselves dead. It all depends upon the preponderance of the evidence - and strength in numbers. The longer ago it is the more difficult the task.

Never say never. We specialise in winning the un-winable.

We have a specialised helpline for the victims of abuse  0845 604 7075

Sadly and understandably, many victims will have had enough and retreat back into their caves of inner contemplation that they have been living in ever since the abuse took place. Lonely and dank though the cave is, it is safer than the outside world of disclosure and pain.

Should the British Government behave like the Irish did towards Magdalene Laundries?

The Film - Magdalene Laundries

For some reason, the Irish Government get it, when it comes to their attitude towards abuse and the protection of children, whereas the British Government don't get it in the same way. You may have noticed the recent apology from the Irish Prime Minister in relation to the Magdalene Laundries scandal. The BBC News Site stated:-

"The Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach), Enda Kenny, has formally apologised on behalf of the state for its role in the Magdalene laundries.

Some 10,000 women and girls were made to do unpaid manual labour in laundries run by Roman Catholic nuns in Ireland between 1922 and 1996."

Would we have seen a British Prime Minister apologising in the same way? I leave you to answer that question. No doubt we would have seen multiple enquiries set up and a promise of "transparency", but not an apology.

The Irish government have also announced the setting up of a compensation scheme for the victims of the laundries. It is in its early stages but according to the BBC " victims are being urged to register with the Republic of Ireland's Department of Justice in preparation for the provision of compensation and support services"

"People may contact the Department of Justice on 01-476 8649 or by writing to: Magdalene Laundry Fund, c/o Department of Justice and Equality, Montague Court, Montague Street, Dublin 2."

Some of the background facts about Magdalene Laundries:-

• Originally termed Magdalene Asylums the first in Ireland was opened in Dublin in 1765, for Protestant girls
• First Catholic home was founded in Cork in 1809
• Envisaged as short-term refuges for 'fallen women' they became long-term institutions and penitents were required to work, mostly in laundries on the premises
• They extended to take in unmarried mothers, women with learning difficulties and girls who had been abused
• The facilities were self-supporting and the money generated by the laundries paid for them
• Between 1922 and 1996 there were 10 such laundries in the Republic of Ireland
• Many Irish institutions, such as the army, government departments, hotels and even Guinness had contracts with Magdalene laundries
• The women toiled behind locked doors unable to leave after being admitted and while the laundries were paid, they received no wages
• The congregations which ran them were the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy, the Religious Sisters of Charity and the Sisters of the Good Shepherd

The Irish deputy Prime Minister (Tanaiste), Eamon Gilmore, said he wanted to tell the survivors that "we have heard you, we believe you, and we are profoundly sorry for what was done to you". The atmosphere in the Irish Parliament was emotional, and the survivors in the public gallery received a standing ovation - how refreshing - we can learn lessons in England from this display of emotion.

An inquiry chaired by Senator Martin McAleese found more than 2,000 women and girls were sent to the laundries by the state authorities, and many Irish institutions, such as the army and some government departments, had contracts with the laundries.

Women were forced into Magdalene laundries for a crime as minor as not paying for a train ticket, the McAleese report found.

The report also confirmed that a police officer could arrest a girl or a woman without warrant if she was being recalled to the laundry or if she had run away.

This is not the first time that the Irish government has done the right thing by the victims of abuse - in 2001 there was a similar apology by the Taoiseach in relation to abuse in Irish Institutions where widespread abuse took place for many years in the past. A list of homes was compiled, with the noticeable omission of the Magdalene Laundries. The government then set up the Irish Redress Board, which closed its doors again, after making many compensation awards in 2005

We at Abney Garsden acted for about 80 claimants to the Board who were successful in their cases. Whilst it is a shame that the Laundries were not included in the former Redress Board remit, at least the Irish Government have rectified the earlier omission.

The exact terms of the scheme have not yet been published, and are awaited with interest. It is likely to be of interest to many Irish emigrants who fled the homeland to escape not only memories of their experiences but also a lack of opportunity. The authors of the McAleese Report estimated that over 800 former residents are still alive.

Many energetic women have campaigned tirelessly. There will be, however, many others, who have never come forward, and should consider doing so.

Was William Roche right to criticise the victims of abuse?

William Roache apologises for his remarks.

If you have not seen the headlines, William Roache (Ken in Coronation Street) has been slammed for making insenstive remarks to a New Zealand TV interviewer about the victims of abuser celebrities. He more or less said that young girls are drawn to celebrities, and then complain of abuse when it all goes wrong.

He is no doubt influenced by the pending prosecution of  Michael Le Vell from Coronation Street who faces 19 charges of abusing young girls and is facing trial at Preston Court, or Stuart Hall, or indeed Andrew Lancel who played Frank Foster in Corrie

He said ""Paedophilia is absolutely horrendous. Paedophiles should be sought out, rooted out and dealt with.

But there's a fringe of people who, particularly pop singers, they have these groupies, these girls, who come, they're sexually active, sexually mature, they don't ask for their birth certificate, they don't know what age they may be.

But they're certainly not grooming them and exploiting them, but they can be caught in this trap.

These people are instantly stigmatised, some will be innocent, some will not, but until such time as it's proven there should be anonymity for both."

Roache has since apologised deeply for his remarks after the child abuse charities rightfully blasted him for his remarks which suggested that victims "brought these thing on themselves".

It is not surprising that abuse has remained a secret for so many years. It is very common. It is much easier to believe that someone whom you know and like - most paedophiles are likable, as otherwise they would not be able to get close to children - is innocent rather than guilty. Whether or not those charged are innocent or guilty, is of course a matter for the courts not the media.

Generally speaking, however the problem in the country has not been the profundity of allegations, but the suppression of allegations by those in a position of power, until the victim has the courage to speak out many years later.

We must encourage those who have been abused to speak out, not silence them with suggestions that they are to blame. Generally speaking, what causes the most damage in a victim of abuse is not the abuse itself, which indeed is manifestly harmful, but the guilt surrounding the crime, and the thought that they are to blame.

Most victims think that they must have encouraged the crime by the way they were as a child, or the way they behaved, which of course cannot be true, particularly where there is a huge age difference, and the abuser is in a position of trust.

Should there by anonymity for the abuser like the victim? I don't believe so. If the abuser's name is broadcast, it often provokes other complaints against the same person, as paedophiles rarely operate in isolation. Usually they have been caught doing something that has been repeated on many occasions in the past, but never been discovered.

As an abuse lawyer I know NAPAC personally, and agree with what they say. This comment is an insult to the victims of abuse, and should be the subject of an apology. It is welcome to hear Roache apologise for what he said, and rightfully so.