Should Tom Watson have apologised to the Brittans?

Tom Watson has been asked to apologise for representing forcefully, the allegations of abuse that have been relayed to him by victims of non-recent abuse committed by, allegedly, Leon Brittan and others. Peter Garsden discusses the feedback he has received from survivors of abuse and their campaigners.  Read his blog here.

http://www.abuselaw.co.uk/news/latest-posts/should-tom-watson-have-apologised-to-the-brittans/ 

Was Panorama fair to the victims of child abuse?

Following the airing of Panorama’s programme entitled xxxxx The Metropolitan Police have put out a statement that the Panorama programme which sought to undermine their Operation Midland Investigation into Dolphin Square might prevent other victims from coming forwards, and undermine their existing investigation. Peter Garsden gave an interview this morning to BBC London. Read more here. 

http://www.abuselaw.co.uk/news/abuse-articles/was-panorama-fair-to-the-victims-of-child-abuse/

Is the Ted Heath allegation a one off?

Arundels - former home of Ted Heath

It is reported by the Guardian that:-

“Metropolitan police detectives have spoken to a man who came forward more than two years ago and claims he was a victim of Heath when he was a teenager. Police have launched a public appeal for victims to come forward after allegations emerged of child sexual abuse by the late former prime minister, Sir Edward Heath. The appeal was made as the police watchdog announced that it was investigating claims that officers dropped a prosecution against a man in the 1990s after he threatened to name Heath as a child abuser. The Guardian has also learned that detectives have spoken to a man, now middle-aged, who says he was abused as a child by Heath on several occasions.”

To read more see my blog on our Abuselaw Website

Did Jimmy Savile abuse children in Manchester children's homes?

 A report was published yesterday into the abuse carried out by the late Jimmy Savile in NHS hospitals, the main focus being Stoke Mandeville Hospital. Kate Lampard, the barrister tasked with the job of providing independent oversight by the Secretary of State for Health, has come under fire for not addressing how mandatory reporting could have served to prevent much of the abuse from happening. 

I look at the main findings of the report and discuss my aim of being granted another group action allowing me to further represent victims of abuse in Manchester children's homes.

View this blog at www.abuselaw.co.uk

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.

Who's being lined up to replace Butler-Sloss in the abuse inquiry?

Resigned - Lady Butler-Sloss

I have been speaking on BBC Radio Manchester and BBC News 24 about Lady Butler-Sloss’s resignation as appointed Chair of the abuse inquiry panel.  The panel was appointed last week to examine the extent to which public institutions failed to investigate allegations of child abuse.  Her resignation came after she faced tremendous pressure from victims’ groups because of a conflict of interest due to the fact that her brother, the late Sir Michael Havers  was Attorney General during the 1980’s which was the period due to be examined by the panel.

I think:- 

• The decision to appoint a person to lead the enquiry was too hurried, yet had been proposed for at least 18 months. Not enough research was done by the government.
• Lady Butler Schloss has much experience of leading enquiries but is now 80 - whilst she has a razor sharp mind this enquiry would have taken several years. Would it be expecting too much of her?
• She has led the Cleveland enquiry which was somewhat controversial in its outcome. Children who allegedly had been abused were returned to their allegedly abusive parents. The process of evidence collection was found to be flawed and Social Services were heavily criticised. The outcome of the Princess Diana inquest was also controversial. She was criticised for holding an inquest without a jury.
• Whilst her competence and ability is undoubted, however, the perception of the survivor group is more important than anything.
• The one thing which survivors of abuse hate is the abuse of power of the state or indeed any public authority. Any suspicion publicly aired makes Lady Butler Schloss's role untenable, sadly, as I am sure she would have done a good job.
• Victims of abuse have witnessed at a young age the abuse of power of an adult whom they trusted. Thus it becomes a typical feature of their personality that they distrust authority intensely. She are also, usually, over protective of their children, and tend to over risk assess situations.

The former judge issued a statement announcing that she would withdraw from the post.  She said that she had been honoured to be invited to chair the inquiry but commented: "It has become apparent over the last few days, however, that there is a widespread perception, particularly among victim and survivor groups, that I am not the right person to chair the inquiry. It has also become clear to me that I did not sufficiently consider whether my background and the fact my brother had been attorney general would cause difficulties."

Theresa May, who had appointed Butler-Sloss last week has strongly defended her against criticism, she said: "I am deeply saddened by Baroness Butler-Sloss's decision to withdraw but understand and respect her reasons. Baroness Butler-Sloss is a woman of the highest integrity and compassion and continues to have an enormous contribution to make to public life.

"As she has said herself, the work of this inquiry is more important than any individual and an announcement will be made on who will take over the chairmanship and membership of the panel as soon as possible so this important work can move forward."

Asked about her successor, Mrs May said she still favoured appointing a single individual to head the over-arching inquiry rather than a panel of experts urged by Labour and some abuse victims.

She said she hoped to name a new candidate "within a reasonable amount of time" but said whoever was approached would need to "think carefully" about the nature of the role.

My choice would be Keir Starmer - why:-

• He has led a drive to change the way the Crown Prosecution Service investigate historical abuse.
• He is in favour of Mandatory Reporting (a change in the law to make it illegal to ignore and not report signs of abuse)
• He is an eminent lawyer and QC.
• He appears to be well balanced.
• He is now independent in that he is back to being a practising barrister, having resigned from the CPS.

Knowl View Report & Council cover up reinforces the need for Mandatory Reporting Law

Knowl View, Rochdale

I was speaking this morning on Radio Manchester about the recently revealed scandal into a report done by an inspector who went to the Knowl View children's home in 1991 and was told that boys were being used as prostitutes and were also being abused forcibly at the home.

Bearing in mind that there is not only a police investigation but also an independent enquiry being commissioned by the Council at the moment by Queens Counsel, this leaked information must be of some importance because otherwise it would simply have featured in the report when published.

As we at QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden act for a victim of the abuse, I do know that the abuse spans the 1960's, 70's, and 80s. The inspection in this case took place in 1991 - which was only a few years before the home closed in 1995. The question would be did any abuse take place after the report, and how long before the report, was the abuse happening with either the actual knowledge, or constructive knowledge of the home?

The points I made on the radio were:-

1. I have been dealing with Children's Home abuse cases for 20 years and have never come across a report mentioning that abuse had actually taken place, then being covered up. Usually one only comes across evidence of a blind eye being turned to signs that children were not behaving normally or maybe a child who tried to disclose but did not quite manage to get everything out. 
2. This shows that the abuse was taking place quite openly at the home rather than happening in secret as usually occurs. 
3. This report will make the victims very angry that their complaints at the time were not responded to in the proper manner and that those in authority were engaged in a cover up. 
4. On the one hand it will make them angry because it will bring it all to the surface again. On the other hand it will please them that albeit many years later they have some chance of getting some justice. 
5. It reinforces the campaign for mandatory reporting, because if it had been possible to complain to an outside body rather than the report being internalised at Rochdale Council, there is a chance that something could have been done at the time, and the scandal uncovered. 
6. There is no criminal offence of failing to report suspicions of abuse and there should be. Those who buried the report should be held accountable for orchestrating a cover up. 
7. The police will only be able to prosecute the abusers if they are still alive rather than those who buried the complaints, who the victims often feel were more to blame.

For more detail on our mandatory reporting campaign see my separate blog on the subject here.

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/