Goddard considers next steps in Janner abuse investigation

The first preliminary hearing held by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) took place on 9th March at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. It marks the start of public hearings in the Inquiry’s 13 investigations. Its purpose was to consider the next steps in the investigation into institutional responses to allegations of child sexual abuse relating to the politician Lord Greville Janner.
The public bodies under scrutiny in the Janner inquiry include the Crown Prosecution Service, Leicestershire police, Leicestershire county council, a number of care homes, the Labour party and the Home Office.

To read the full blog click here. 

Will Lord Janner stand trial or not?

As we await the decision on whether the independent QS tasked with the review on whether the decision of Alison Saunders (the Director of Public Prosecutions) not to charge Lord Janner with alleged child abuse crimes was the right decision to make, Peter Garsden looks at the possible outcomes.  Click here to read his views www.abuselaw.co.uk

Should Woolf resign from the National Historic Abuse Inquiry?

Fiona Woolf

I was on LBC Radio the other day giving my opinion on whether Fiona Woolf should resign from the Historical Abuse Inquiry set up by the Home Secretary in response to the many scandals linking Central Government with a cover up of abuse allegations in days gone by. They asked me whether or not she should resign because of the recent revelations that she had had dinner with Leon Brittain  4 or 5 times and had supported one of Lady Brittain's charities. I said:-

1. I was surprised that the government chose Fiona Woolf to lead this enquiry as she does not have a history of representing the rights of the poor and oppressed members of Society, quite the reverse in fact because she has quite a history as a company and commercial lawyer. That is the wrong background for the head of an enquiry which is forseen as attacking the establishment and upturning stones under which we expect to find scandals.
2. I was expecting someone like Keir Starmer or Michael Meacher QC. For all I know they were both approached and refused. After the disaster which followed the appointment of Lady Butler Schloss, one would have thought that more care would be taken this time.
3. The point is that, although Fiona Woolf may be very capable, she does not have the respect and trust of the survivor community, hence the enquiry is doomed from the start. Whilst there are some very good other panel members who have collectively come from the former abusees and survivors of abuse, Ms. Woolf will be in charge of tactics and direction. So it will be up to her to decide whether
1. It should be turned into a public enquiry.
2. What documents should be demanded from government - that is crucial to uncovering the truth.
4. The survivors obviously think that someone weak and lack lustre has been appointed so that the inquiry will never get to the truth because it will not adopt an aggressive and "won't take No for an answer" type of approach.
5. I find it hard to believe that Teresa May has made a hash of this for a second time. Wouldn't you have thought she and the department would have done their homework first, as it has obviously led to an embarrassing appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee.
6. There should be a former judge, or at least someone who has chaired enquiries in charge.
7. So what format should the enquiry take?
1. It should be a Royal Commission along the lines of the Australian model which is a resounding success, which does have the respect of the survivor community. One can read about the enquiry here - http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/
2. They should look at the Irish Redress Board as a good model of an inquiry, which , despite some controversy, worked well for the victims. They had two arms - Commission of Inquiry, which heard allegations, some of which resulted in criminal prosecutions, and a Redress Board which heard applications for Compensation from Survivors. It was very victim focused and enabled the victim, who was at the centre of it all, to give live evidence, which was recorded. To read more, follow this link...http://www.rirb.ie
8. Quite frankly I am glad I am not on the panel, because membership of the panel almost guarantees being pilloried by survivors whose vitriol and mistrust, which is quite understandable, will not assist it being a successful form of process.
9. How long will Ms Woolf last - it looks as though she is here to stay with the full backing of government. She is also being supported by her fellow panel members, who have gone public to say that because there is such a broad spread of panel members with all the right characteristics, it doesn't really matter.
10. I think that the Leon Brittain's allegations are really very secondary to the main issue which is the support and trust of the survivors, which, sadly is very lacking

Jimmy Savile Trust challenges the compensation scheme in the Court of Appeal.

I will be speaking on BBC Radio Leeds drivetime concerning the news that the trustees controlling Jimmy Savile's charitable trust are trying to prevent victims claiming compensation from his estate.


As it stands the victims can't legally claim compensation from the money which the trust controls, but they can claim from Savile's estate. But now, the trustees who control £3.7M, have won the right to challenge any payouts from the Savile estate and plan to take their case to the Court of Appeal later in the year. If the trust's case is found successful, victims may not even be able to claim compensation from the Savile estate

Why now

This has come as a shock to both lawyers representing the victims and the victims themselves, as initially there was no objection from the trust to the compensation scheme when it was being agreed at the High Court, but the trust instead lodged papers afterwards with the Court of Appeal. It has been documented that the named trustees of the charity also appear as beneficiaries in Savile's will.

Impact on victims

Understandably the victims are said to be angry and disappointed. This will mean that the case will drag on even longer than otherwise it would have done, and will be frustrating finalisation of the claims.

The Jimmy Savile Compensation Claims are set up to be shared under a scheme already set up between the estate of Jimmy Savile, the BBC, and the NHS Trust. There has been authorised advertising, and a capped limit of £60,000 per claim.

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.