Is there a whole new breed of abuse hidden in the army just waiting to be discovered?

Anne Marie Ellement

The recent story about the suicide of Anne Louise Ellement, and her inquest, demanded and orchestrated by her family and campaigning lawyer, made me realise that there is a huge undiscovered area of abuse in the military, it seems, at the moment, more against women than men. It would not surprise me in the least if, in a very male and power dominated environment, that male on male abuse is not also commonplace.

The inquest revealed that a female soldier, albeit with a fragile mental health background, was bullied ruthlessly for reporting two soldiers for raping her at barracks in Germany. Because the military do not have to hand over allegations of a sexual nature to the civilian police, it was decided to take no further action. This then prompted the accused's soldier's girlfriend to bully her cruelly for being a "slag" etc. The upshot, eventually after this had gone on for more than a year also by others was the successful suicide of the soldier. Because this soldier was disliked, presumably in view of her accusations, she had been overworked, and given unreasonable amounts of work which she was unable to complete, hence allegations of work related stress.

An interesting article of quite outspoken comment appeared in the Guardian Society Pages, written by a former soldier, Joe Glenton, which in summary alleged that there is institutional sexism in the army - to quote

"Let us dispense with the idea that the British military is in a meaningful sense a slightly quaint but essentially harmonious family. Healthy families do not regularly inflict acts of sexual violence upon each other, and in the British forces rapes and sexual assaults seem to have become something of a banality. No comparable professional group in the UK appears to rival the military for rates of colleague-on-colleague sexual violence. I would argue this stems from a poisonous mix of unchallenged sexism, unaccountable power and an archaic military justice system."

I then started to compare the way it is in the army with abuse in the civilian world and came up with some startling conclusions:-

1. To exist, abuse requires a cloistered environment where an abuser can be alone away from the prying eyes of those who might judge, prevent, and prosecute - the army is its own world with its own police force and internal rules. To justify this existence it needs to produce a fighting force which can protect our nation. This justifies making individuals who will not think twice before killing another man in cold blood. But how does this fit in with a morally sensitive environment and a caring attitude to allegations of rape?

2. The way in which abusers manage to operate in secret for many years is by abuse of power, which is indeed what abuse is. Whilst sexual assault is usually the outcome, the driving force and perversion is always abuse of power which makes all abusers manipulative and coercive of their victims and any authority which attempts to investigate and punish them. The army lives on power and command. It is insular, and male dominated. It has to be powerful to survive and win wars.

3. The way in which one can route out abuse is by creating an open and protected system of reporting. Mandatory reporting exists in most countries which use civilised systems of law - apart from England of course - which makes the failure to report abuse witnessed a crime. What better environment exists to suppress the reporting of abuse a crime than the army . They use their own military police to investigate most crimes. To make a report, one presumably has to go through the echelons of power rather than being able to report outside of the army to the police. It is thus easy to contain any corruption internally and at source. Indeed it was not until 1999 that it became possible legally to bring any civil proceedings against the Crown. Prior thereto it was the law that the Crown was immune from any sort of civil suit.

4. The more traditional and inward looking an organisation (the Catholic Church for instance), the less likelihood there is of any abuse being investigated and changes made to prevent it happening in the future. One definitely gets the impression that the Army has all the hallmarks of making the process of investigation and change extremely difficult.

Having done my analysis I feel quite pessimistic that the abuse which exists in the army will be routed out and its culture changed. I fear we have a long hard path to tread, and a long way to go.....

Trawling rears its ugly head again

Bryn Estyn, Wrexham

I notice that  a Huddersfield MP Labour's Barry Sheerman has claimed that the National Crime Agency (NCA) is using controversial "trawling" techniques to find evidence against teachers and social workers in its investigation into historic child abuse in North Wales care homes.

This is an old chestnut used in opposition to the care home investigations back in the 1990's, which resulted in a flawed Home Affairs Select Committee enquiry in 2003 at which many complaining care workers, who had been investigated by the police, suggested that they had been the victims of a witch hunt. In response to the enquiry's findings that trawling was a method which was the reverse of normal police methods whereby they wait for complainants to come to them, the Home Office rejected most of the findings.

The result was, unfortunately, that the police put child abuse investigations, particularly those concentrating on events from many years ago at the bottom of their list of priorities, until Mr Savile reared his ugly head. Suddenly it became a political priority, and something requiring much police attention.

Then we had the Rochdale Taxi Driver's case where a genuine complaint of sexual grooming was not proceeded with by the CPS due the reliability of the witness. There had been no investigation to see if there were others involved.A more thorough investigation in 2012/3 discovered that a gang was involved, something which was missed originally.

Then Keir Starmer, when he was in charge of the CPS, took the lead to find new ways of investigating allegations of abuse from the past saying that the police would concentrate on making the victims case better, and should look for evidence to support the claims - in other words he was not using the word "trawling" because of its connotations, but rather saying that there was nothing wrong with looking for corroboration.

Abuse is a crime which happens in secret where both the perpetrator and victim want to keep it quiet for different reasons, and where, if it is to be investigated properly, the police must take a pro-active approach to uncover the crime.

I was speaking at sexual grooming conference in Birmingham where the police involved were pointing out that the force had to go out looking for this sort of crime, because it would not come to them. Girls in a sexual grooming abuse ring would rather keep quiet for fear of being killed by gang members if they speak up.

Let me make it clear, I don't blame the police for the change in policy after the Home Affairs Select Committee enquiry. They were responding to political, and alleged abuser led pressure. There is always more crime to investigate than officers available.

I am afraid that Barry Sheerman appears to be speaking up for a constituent who seems to be on the wrong end of the new investigation into North Wales Care Homes - Operation Pallial. There is no doubt that the original investigation into abuse during the 1990's did not uncover all the allegations, and that a lot of victims, who were not able to disclose all those years ago for very good psychological reasons, are now coming forward.

Obviously the alleged abusers involved don't like it. That is no surprise.

I act for one of the North Wales victims who is part of Operation Pallial who is claiming compensation for the horrific abuse committed upon him. It is very easy to criticise the vulnerable. They generally don't fight back. Let us hope that this complaint doesn't get anywhere.

At the recent sentencing of Peter Wright, the headmaster at Caldicott Prep School who was just sentenced to 8 years imprisonment for his part in a paedophile ring, but more accurately for several acts of abuse at the school over many years, Judge Cutts QC, when referring to a previous flawed police investigation in 2003, commented "It is clear to me that the police fear of being accused of trawling for evidence prevented the proper investigation of this case at that time."

Any victim reading this who needs advice can contact our abuse department via our website http://www.abuselaw.co.uk/ or email us to reception@abneys.co.uk 

Deadline set for Manchester home abuse victims to come forward

We are appealing for people who were abused as children from the 1950’s to the 1990’s; in Manchester City Council run homes, to speak out about the abuse they suffered.  The appeal comes as a cut off date has been set in which claims for compensation can be made as part of the largest ever group action for alleged child abuse.   The decision was made at a hearing brought by Manchester City Council before the High Court in Manchester on 7^th February.  A cut off date has been set for 4pm on Wednesday 7^th May 2014, by which time any new victim must have started court proceedings.

In May 2009 we were given High Court clearance to set up a second group of alleged victims who claimed they were abused while in the care of the children’s homes run by the city council’s social services from the 1950’s to the 1990’s.   The action centred on three main homes run by the City Council – Rosehill in Northenden, Broomehouse in Didsbury and Mobberley Boys in Knutsford. A Schedule of other homes where there have been allegations is listed below. 

452 alleged victims have joined the Group to date and 275 cases have been settled for £2,042,510 in total .  The lowest settlement is £1,100 and the highest is £30,000 with the average compensation pay out being around £7,427.31.

In 2007 we represented 168 claimants in the first group action in which we managed to secure compensation amounting to nearly £2,260,000. The group was originally formed in response to a massive police investigation launched by Greater Manchester Police code named “Operation Cleopatra” from Grey Mare Lane Police Station. Starting in 1997 and concluding around 2002, it investigated 66 children’s homes in Greater Manchester, and prosecuted a number of individuals. Manchester City Council Social Services Department ran most of the homes. Former Broome House warden and assistant director of Manchester social services Ronald Hall was eventually jailed for 11 years, with deputy Ian Gray given 14 years and ex-social worker Phillip Roe jailed for 12-and-a-half years.

The two Group Actions added together mean that the compensation paid out to date amounts to £4,302,510, which is the largest ever pay out in any abuse Group Action. The eventual payout is likely to be over £5 million once all the cases settle.

The decision to impose a cut off date now by the High Court was against what we were arguing on behalf of the victims. The Court decided to side with the Council. I was opposed to the idea because new Claimants are continuing to come forward in a steady stream. It is unfair that an arbitrary date has been set for 3 months hence. We have, however, to abide by the Court’s decision. It is very important that as much publicity as possible is given to this announcement because the Court also decided to prohibit any paid advertising, presumably to save the costs for the Council, who are having to foot the bill. If enough new Claimants come forward then we can make an application to the Court to put the date back even further.

If you think you have a case you can speak to one of our specialist male or female solicitors in complete confidence.

Schedule of Homes

Rosehill

Broomehouse

Mobberley Boys Home

Glendene

Seymour Road

Ellerslie

Buglawton Hall

Taxal Edge

Lynwood

Various Family Group Homes

Is there a new wave of abuse compensation claims?

This is the question I was asked by a researcher from BBC Wales who referred me to two articles on the BBC News website. She was wondering if things were changing because of all the publicity, and perhaps that local authorities would not be able to afford claims for massive damages akin to the American system. The answer to the question is simply that because of all the publicity more people are coming forward to the police wanting to prosecute their abusers, and to lawyers, wanting to pursue claims for abuse against either their abuser of his/her employer if appropriate.

The two articles I was referred to were "Lawyers seek US-style damages for abuse at public schools" which is an article sourced by some American Lawyers who have come over from the States, where damages are many times higher in value than in the UK, not just in the field of abuse, but also generally. This is for two reasons:-

1. American Lawyers are paid a percentage of damages - as high as 40% in some cases on what is called a contingency fee basis - now legal in England since April 2013 but in a slightly different form - damage based agreements.
2. Juries often assess damages - their view of how valuable a case is often tops to some degree what a conservative judge might think.

I do agree that United Kingdom damages are too low. When one considers that abuse is a life long period of suffering, then compensation of between £30,000 and £50,000 is to little. It equates to about a nice Starbucks coffee per day. The problem is that the ceiling for damages is scaled down from the most serious injuries, the figure for which is not high enough. The figures are set down by the Judicial Studies Board Guildelines. Even though a 10% increase was announced in April 2013, UK damages dwarf the US.

The other article announced that a group of 10 new claimants had come forward to make claims against Cardiff County Council for abuse committed by an employee called David Leighton Davies who had been convicted for offences at Cyntwell High School in Ely as long ago as 1977. The article made it clear that it was the insurers were responsible for meeting the awards, but still there was a worry that it might affect the finances of a local education authority.

My points were:-

1. The attitude of the police to investigating past incidents of abuse has changed radically due to new guidelines brought out by Keir Starmer, and in response to cases like Jimmy Savile.
2. There is a feeling by the authorities that celebrities were allowed license to abuse young girls in the gaze of those in authority many years ago, and that this should never happen again - hence Operation Yewtree and the many prosecutions of celebrities presently taking place.
3. More disclosures of abuse is a good thing. Victims should not have to keep their secrets hidden for fear that the events were their fault, or that they will not be believed.
4. Disclosure can be painful, but is better out than in. There is an abundance now of support by way of counselling and charitable groups that can assist any individual go through the process.
5. It is now much more acceptable to admit that someone has been abused in childhood, indeed it is commonly on the news almost daily. Most victims remain, however, ashamed and silent. It is understandable. 
6. What we are now witnessing in the media is still the tip of the iceberg.

I don't think we will ever reach the heights of American damages for victims going to the Courts of England and Wales. Victims do, however, deserve more than they get. Let us hope there is no backlash designed to squash genuine claims like there was around 2001 and 2002, when the Home Office launched an enquiry into alleged false allegations of abuse from children's homes - for which see my previous blog.

Irish Case finds state to blame

I was very interested to read that the Irish State has been found to blame for abuse in Irish Schools by the European Court of Human Rights.

Kelly O'Keeffe took the case to Europe after the Supreme Court ruled the State could not be held responsible because the national school in question had been run by an independent board at the time.

She was abused when she was  nine years old by her teacher Leo Hickey at Dunderrow National School in Co Cork in 1973. Decades later, Hickey was charged with 386 criminal offences involving 21 former Dunderrow pupils.

It is interesting that the European Court found that the Irish State had not only been negligent, but also were in breach of Human Rights Legislation under under Sections 3 and 13 of European law.

The case had been taken to the Supreme Court in Ireland without success. The European Court, much chastised by our own government, found for the victim of abuse in circumstances, which seem just, and where, perhaps, the precedent led Irish Court had taken an overly technical approach because it felt bound to do so because of previous cases.

The European Court stands as a tribunal which is totally independent of the national interests of countries, which, for reasons which may be related to political pressure, despite efforts to avoid the influence of politicians, can make decisions free of anything other than the pure application of law.

I have blogged before about the way in which the judiciary in this country is being leaned about by the executive, or parliament, to put it another way. England , and presumably other countries, do not like when a Court overrules their judicial decisions, or criticises the way in which their government behaves.

Without appearing to be too hysterical, the growth of international safety nets such as the United Nations, NATO, etc. has served a similar purpose, and has been effective in preventing a World War since 1945.

There are signs in this country, that the law is being extended to impose liability on local authorities who attempt to delegate responsibility for child care to independent contractors. In the case of Woodlands v Essex County Council 2013, the Supreme Court found a local authority liable for negligence by an independent swimming teacher after a child nearly drowned during a swimming lesson, and suffered brain damage.

Commentators wonder whether the principle can extend liability for foster parents to them as well.


The newspaper reports shows how delighted Ms. O'Keeffe, who will have been enraged at the lack of justice administered by the Courts in Ireland, is by the decision. She is the victim of the abuse by the state, who, when she has tried to obtain compensation, has been rejected once again by the very body she deems responsible. The attitude of a victim to authority is usually averse to any abuse of power because in childhood, they have been abused by someone with power over them.

What will be interesting is how the Irish Government react to the decision. According to RTE News -

"Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn said that while his sympathy is very much with Ms O'Keeffe, he will have to consider the judgment and receive advice before he can give a reaction.

Asked if he would give Ms O'Keeffe an apology, he said that he is glad she has got a result, but he will have to consider the implications of the ruling."

No ruling of the European Court is binding on a nation state. They can ignore it if they wish. Judging by the strength of feeling amongst the victims of abuse, it would seem unlikely that the Irish State will turn its back on the judgment.

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.