MEMORANDUM 2 submitted to the Chris Mullin led
Home Affairs Committee 2002/2003 session of Parliament.
Submitted by Chief Constable Terence Grange,
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (CA 119)
Do police methods of "trawling" for
evidence involve a disproportionate use of resources and produce unreliable
evidence for prosecution?
The Committee has invited a
response to the issue of "police trawling"; assumedly there is a
perception that this is an acknowledged investigative approach. That is not
the case. Rather it is the case that those seeking to impugn the integrity
of the investigations the Committee is concerned with use the epithet
"trawling". It implies a widespread and indiscriminate search for
alleged victims without concern for rules of evidence and the reliability
of the witness or complainant and the evidence they purport to provide.
In support of these claims critics
suggest that letters sent to former residents of care institutions create
an expectation of compensation and inexorably lead the person receiving the
letter to consider or make a false claim of abuse. To assist the committee,
I append a sample of the letters sent.
It is the case that no
investigation of "historical" abuse has commenced other than by a
former resident or residents seeking out the police and making allegations
as to their treatment. In some cases, notably the "survivors of Forde
Park" former residents had been seeking an investigation for several
years.
The initial allegations were of the
most serious sexual assaults, all allegedly committed on children or young
people aged between 12 and 18 years of age at the time of the alleged
assaults.
Each apparent victim will have been
required to make a statement of complaint in accordance with Section 9,
Police and Magistrates Courts Act. Each will have been made aware of and
signed the declaration at the top of each statement. The police
investigation will then take a familiar pattern and will be conducted
within the procedures laid down in the Criminal Procedures and
Investigations Act (CPIA) and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).
The Criminal Procedures and
Investigations Act Codes of Practice Part II, state that officers
conducting investigations into criminal allegations should pursue all
reasonable lines of enquiry, whether these point towards or away from a
named suspect.[1] Attempts to corroborate or undermine an
allegation must be made by the investigating officer.
"Historic" investigations
are unusual in that forensic evidence is much less likely to be available.
In these cases, the purported witnesses would have been resident in care
institutions during the relevant times. Therefore, those witnesses would
have to be traced and offered the opportunity to provide information and
evidence.
The numbers of potential
witnesses/victims are such that were each to be visited personally the
enquiries would be inordinately long. Many would have no evidence to give
or not wish to become involved. Therefore, alternative approaches
constructed after discussion with the independent Crown Prosecution Service
were and are adopted.
For each suspect a timeline as to
their presence at a relevant institution is prepared and local authority
records for the establishment examined to identify those residents at the
time. Other than those named by the apparent victim or victims, who will be
sought out and where willing interviewed, a sample of all known residents
during the relevant period will be made; ordinarily 10 per cent or 50 residents
will be written to and advised of the enquiry and asked if they wish to
become involved. Some enquiries have sought out all former residents, in
one case at the request of the defence team. A sample of those letters from
various enquiries is appended. Recent statistics from one such enquiry,
with relevance to the issue of compensation are appended also. They suggest
that less than 10 per cent reply.
Should a positive reply be received
the respondent will be visited and a statement taken.
Other forms of contact have
included calling at the address without notification and telephone
questionnaires. Both have been potentially harmful to the individual.
DISPROPORTIONATE USE OF RESOURCES
As a matter of law, it is for
respective chief constables to decide upon the deployment of their
resources and upon the investigations that will or will not be conducted.
The Committee will be aware of the Blackburn judgement that underpins the
operational independence of chief constables.
It is the case that a major enquiry
such as a murder, rape or serious sexual assault on a minor of whichever
sex will have large resources applied to it. An efficient enquiry will be
speedily conducted within the constraints of the CPIA and PACE Acts. To
assist the Committee's deliberations a murder involving a stranger or a
similar enquiry of major public interest would have a minimum 36 detective
constables employed on enquiries, in accordance with ACPO guidelines. These
investigations involved the most serious sexual and physical assaults on
minors at the time in the care of the state.
In the interests of the apparent
victims, those accused and public confidence in the care system it would be
an imperative that the allegations were investigated thoroughly and as
speedily as possible. Therefore, the appropriate resources would be applied
after the investigating officer had made a well-founded case for those
resources. Each of the enquiries referred to by critics commenced with
allegations being brought to the notice of the police or other social
agency. The enquiries and staffing followed and were and are regularly
reviewed.
The suggestion that the enquiries
are disproportionately resourced in comparison to other needs, which are
more current, is based on a false proposition and would if acted upon lead
to a gross miscarriage of justice to those who were victims. That
incidents, which occurred many years ago, retain an ability to cause harm
is the rationale behind the Saville enquiry into the actions of government
servants some 30 years ago, in Northern Ireland. The arguments in favour of
these enquiries, incorporating some individuals still involved in managing
children in care are directly analogous to the Saville enquiry. In these
cases, people, have been convicted having pleaded guilty to a lifetime of
abuse of minors in their care.
UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE
It is the case that of those
persons charged with offences and who went to full trial in the Merseyside
operation some 50 per cent pleaded guilty; most those to serious and repetitive
sexual assaults on children. A significant proportion of those charged with
offences from investigations in other forces have pleaded guilty also. In
most these cases the offenders were admitting to serial abuse of minors.
From the figures, available it
appears that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service discontinue some
90 per cent of investigations at an early stage, in accordance with CPS
guidelines on sufficiency of evidence and reliability of witness’s
evidence.
Put simply, allegations of minor
assaults where corroboration is lacking are not pursued.
Where investigations are pursued,
the evidence is subject to independent scrutiny by the CPS, by the
independent barrister appointed to lead the prosecution, by the presiding
judge and by a jury. The antecedent histories of all the apparent victims
and all prosecution witnesses are made available to the defence under
disclosure rules. Their lifestyle, motivation and credibility are open to
forceful challenge by defence counsel. Despite claims to the contrary, many
of the apparent victims and witnesses are neither career criminals nor
seeking compensation, as court records would testify.
The adversarial system of our
judicial process subject’s prosecution witnesses to in depth and repeated challenges
as to their integrity, memory and motivation. These challenges are made
before a judge and a jury of their peers.
Should there be a time limit—in terms of number
of years since the alleged offence took place—on prosecution of cases of
child abuse?
To assist the Committee I refer to
two documents; "Setting the Boundaries"[2] and "Lost in Care"[3].
"Setting the Boundaries" is a consultation paper on
modernising the laws on sex offences. Its terms of reference were:
— To
review the sex offences in the common and statute law of England and Wales,
and make recommendations that will:
— Provide
coherent and clear sex offences which protect individuals, especially
children and the more vulnerable from abuse and exploitation;
— Enable
abusers to be appropriately punished, and
— Be
fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the ECHR and Human Rights
Act.
The review process was inclusive,
wide ranging and sought amongst other issues to take account of the ECHR
and the Human Rights Act and Article 6 of the ECHR on the need to ensure a
fair trial and that the interests of justice are upheld.
Following in depth analysis, the
authors of "Setting the Boundaries" recommended that there
should be no time limit on prosecution for the new offence of sexual
activity with a child.[4]
"Lost in Care" is
the title of the Waterhouse Report into the abuse of children in care in
the Council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974. Waterhouse reported that
"failings that were common to all the Gwynedd community homes included
the absence of any complaints procedures until a handbook was drafted and
published in 1985".[5] He also reported that in Clwyd "there
were no complaints procedures in any residential establishments between
1974 and 1991"[6] and that "the few residents who
complained were discouraged and their complaints generally
suppressed".[7] Waterhouse found that virtually no care
regime in England and Wales had viable complaints procedures. As a matter
of practice those who complained were moved to regimes far more oppressive
than those about which they had complained.
Waterhouse discovered as a matter
of fact that children placed in the care of the state were sexually and
physically abused by those employed by the state to care for them. The
abuse took many forms; subsequent convictions after criminal trials give a
flavour of the offences committed as may be seen in Appendix A.
"Setting the
Boundaries" cogently discusses the issue of statutory time limits
for sexual offences against children. This committee is examining the issue
of sexual offences against children in the care of the state. Those
children would be least well placed to raise the issue or successfully to
induce public concern and an investigation.
Should the Committee, and through
the Committee our Government, accept an argument that those in care may be
abused by those the state employs to care for them and that the onus for
action to rectify the wrongs done should be upon the victim and proscribed
by time?
Is there a risk that the advertisement of
prospective awards of compensation in child abuse cases encourages people
to come forward with fabricated allegations?
It is submitted that there has been
no known "advertisement" of compensation by the police as
suggested in the question.
Copies of letters sent out by
forces during enquiries are attached at Appendix B and a press release from
a Social Services Department is also attached at Appendix C.
There is undoubtedly a risk that
the advertisement of prospective awards of compensation in child abuse
cases encourages people to come forward with fabricated allegations. To
date from all the institutional abuse enquiries there are two known cases
of fabricated allegations; both individuals were prosecuted.
A similar risk exists in the case
for insurance frauds of all types; ruined holidays, lost or stolen
property, personal injuries, psychological injury at work, benefit frauds
and other matters.
Is the risk of fabricated
allegations any greater in cases of child abuse than in other areas? There
is no substantive evidence on which the issue could properly be argued
either way.
If someone does fabricate an
allegation it may be for several reasons which could include compensation
but may be for another reason for example revenge, malice or retribution.
No allegation is taken at face value, and all are thoroughly investigated
and the account probed to gain all available evidence to corroborate it.
The policy of all the institutional
abuse enquiries is clear; officers will not raise the issue of
compensation. Where the apparent victim raises the issue that will be
recorded, reported upon and disclosed to the Crown Prosecution Service. The
ACPO handbook for Senior Investigating Officers sets out best practice in
this area and commends to investigating officers a clear statement of
policy in their respective enquiries.
Protocols drawn up with the CICA
are recorded as policy and provided to defence counsel. Copies of the
letters, proforma used and other relevant documents are provided to defence
counsel. The full list of those who seek CICA compensation is disclosed to
the defence.
It is the case that investigating
officers are aware of the full range of motivations for individuals making
allegations.
Undoubtedly there are firms of
solicitors actively seeking "victims" through the offer of
prospective awards of compensation. In support of their civil claim their
"victims" may report their allegation to the police. The police
provide information to solicitors acting on behalf of complainants only in
accordance with the direction of the civil court judge. Any police enquiry
into the allegations made is carried out with no reference to the
compensation issue and in compliance with all relevant criminal law.
Is there a weakness in the current law on
"similar fact" evidence?
INTRODUCTION
It is assumed from context that the
question is whether the scope for admitting similar fact evidence is at
present too great. That such a question should even be asked is surprising.
It was only in June 1996 that the Labour Party attempted to insert an
amendment into the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill which would
have put pressure on judges to order joint trials where one person is
accused of a number of sexual offences[8]. The argument invoked (the importance of
allowing juries to assess the "complete picture") applies equally
to similar fact evidence (a subject intimately linked to the question of
severance). There is no doubt that the law in relation to evidence of
previous misconduct (of which similar fact evidence forms a sub-category)
needs general reform. However, the thrust of any reform must be towards the
greater admissibility of such evidence. To exaggerate further the handicaps
imposed on juries by exclusionary rules of evidence would be to ignore
entirely the conclusions of Lord Justice Auld.
THE VALUE OF SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE
Similar fact evidence has the
potential to be among the most reliable forms of evidence. This is perhaps
best illustrated by the facts of the "brides in the bath case"[9]. The third wife of the defendant, Mr Smith
drowned in the bath during their honeymoon. His honeymoons with Mrs Smith
one and Mrs Smith two had been curtailed in similar circumstances, his
bride drowning in the bath on each occasion. In isolation, the murders
might have been difficult to prove; the complete picture, however,
constituted an irresistible prosecution case.
The consequences of any overly
restrictive approach to the admission of similar fact evidence can be seen
from the case of Michael Maloney[10]. Maloney was subject to five charges of
rape based on complaints made by five different women, his defence in each
instance being one of consent. The judge ruled that each charge would be
heard by separate juries in ignorance of the other four allegations. In the
event the five trials resulted in four acquittals and one conviction[11].
Allegations of sexual offences are
notoriously difficult to prove. This is partly because the offences are
likely to have taken place in private, partly because, in the context of
child victims, it is often many years before complaints reach the
authorities. These evidential difficulties combined with the burden and
standard of proof relevant to criminal cases result in rates of conviction
so low it becomes irrational for victims to risk humiliation before the
courts[12]. This situation casts doubt on whether
our criminal justice system can be considered to comply with Article 8 of
the Human Rights Act ("The Right to Respect for Private and Family
Life"). The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that:
Effective
deterrence is indispensable in [the area of sexual assaults] and it can be
achieved only by criminal law provisions[13].
A failure to provide effective
deterrence against serious abuse is likely to constitute a breach of
Article 8. At present the system is widely perceived effectively to deter
only victims from pursuing complaints.
Sexual offences typically fall
within a pattern of offending. Dix's 1976 study of convicted child sex
offenders hospitalised for treatment found 85 per cent admitted previous
offending although two thirds of the sample were "first time"
convicted offenders[14]. Exposure of such a pattern of offending
will often provide the only real prospect of proving a case. Conversely a
jury may be inclined to speculate that the absence of such a pattern is
contra-indicative of guilt. It would surely be perverse to limit the use of
similar fact evidence in the very area where it is most needed, most likely
to be of benefit.
THE ALLEGED "RISK OF PREJUDICE" OF
SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE
The probative value of similar fact
evidence is self-evident. With an isolated allegation of sexual abuse
(where the defence is, say, consent) the jury must assess the possibility
that the allegation is motivated by malice. In the absence of background
knowledge of either defendant or the victim there may be little on which to
base the assessment. The burden and standard of criminal proof in
conjunction with the indisputable fact that malicious allegations of abuse
will sometimes be made, often provide the only solid foundations for a jury
verdict. Where, however, allegations of a similar nature have been levelled
against the same individual from different sources the issues are
immediately and dramatically narrowed. It will usually be an affront to
common sense to suggest that several allegations of a similar nature have
been made against an innocent individual if the allegations are entirely
independent of each other. The issue will usually boil down to one of
collusion, conspiracy or manipulation of an inquiry.
The risk of collusion or conspiracy
between complaints is often considered to be a reason for excluding similar
fact evidence; but it is unclear why this is so. The possibility of
malicious collusion between witnesses to a single incident has never been
thought to be anything other than a matter for the jury. There is no reason
to suppose a jury less capable of evaluating the possibility in the context
of similar fact evidence. Further, if the only explanation consistent with
a defendant's innocence is conspiracy between the complainants, the only
way for the defendant to raise this possibility, and for the jury to assess
it, is by reference to the complaints taken together. Ordering separate
trials, or refusing to admit evidence of past, proved similar facts
prevents the jury from focusing on the real issues, allowing the case to be
hi-jacked by issues an objective observer knows to be demonstrably false.
CONCLUSION
Plainly it is critical that
investigating authorities do not pressure young, impressionable people into
giving false evidence. Plainly it is critical that judges and juries are
alert to the possibility of false or dishonest evidence in all cases. There
is no reason, however, to deny juries the opportunity to assess for
themselves evidence that on its face is highly relevant and probative. To
do so might well constitute a breach of Article 8.
February 2002
APPENDIX
A
POLICE FORCE RESPONSES—INVESTIGATIONS INTO
HISTORIC INSTITUTIONAL CHILD ABUSE HOME AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
Force
|
Employment
|
Number
and Type of Convictions
|
Sentence
|
Sentence
Date
|
Initial
Plea
|
Avon
& Somerset
|
Care
Worker
|
38
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
1 Assault ABH on male U.16
|
Crown
Court
6 years imprisonment
|
28.11.2001
|
NG
to 26
G to 13
|
|
Gardener/Housemaster
|
27
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
3 Buggeries on males U.16
9 Attempt Buggeries on males U.16
|
Truro
Crown Court
18 years imprisonment
|
21.09.2000
|
NG
|
|
Unemployed
|
1
Attempt to pervert the Course of Public Justice
(Claimed to be a victim but never went to the school in question)
|
Exeter
Crown Court
6 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months
|
25.08.2000
|
G
|
Devon
& Cornwall
|
Housemaster
|
7
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
1 Attempt Indecent Assault on males U.16
|
Exeter
Crown Court
3 years imprisonment
|
20.10.2000
|
G
|
|
Housemaster/Scout
Master
|
18
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
7 Buggeries on males U.16
1 Attempt Buggery
(12 of the 26 offences—Op Goldfinch—South Wales)
|
Exeter
Crown Court
15 years imprisonment
|
08.06.2001
|
NG
|
|
Teacher
|
1
Indecent Assault on male U.16
1 Making and Indecent pseudo image of a child
|
Torbay
Magistrates Court
7 months imprisonment
|
03.07.2001
|
G
|
Cheshire
|
Teacher
|
5
Indecent Assaults
|
3.5
years’ imprisonment
|
28.03.2001
|
NG
|
|
Teacher
|
3
Indecent Assaults
|
3
years’ imprisonment
|
13.07.2000
|
NG
|
|
Staff
Member
|
17
Indecent Assaults
|
3.5
years’ imprisonment
|
21.12.1995
|
G
|
|
Staff
Member
|
6
Indecent Assaults
|
5.5
years’ imprisonment
|
21.12.1995
|
NG
|
Durham
|
Care
Worker
|
10
Buggery/Indecent Assaults on male children
|
9
years’ imprisonment
|
19.12.2001
|
—
|
Gloucestershire
|
PE
Teacher
|
12
Indecent Assaults Boy U.16
|
18
months’ sups 2 years
|
—
|
—
|
|
House
Parent
|
4 Indecent Assault on child U.13
1 Indecent Assault on male U.16
1 Indecent Assault on male
1 Indecent Assault on male
1 Gross Indecency on child U.14
3 Buggery with a male U.21 without
consent
|
Trial
"Stayed" as the defendant was deemed to be medically unfit to
stand trial
|
03.05.1999
|
NG
|
Greater
Manchester Police
|
Deputy
Warden
|
6 Indecent Assault on male U.13
8 Indecent Assault on male U.16
4 Gross Indecency on child U.14
10 Buggery on child U.16
|
14
years’ imprisonment
|
23.03.2001
|
NG
|
|
Warden
|
3 Indecent Assault on male U.13
13 Indecent Assault on male U.16
1 Buggery on male U.13
1 Buggery on male U.16
1 Buggery on male without consent
|
11
years’ imprisonment
|
10.12.2001
|
NG
**Notice of appeal has been served**
|
|
Residential
Social Worker
|
1 Indecent Assault on male U.13
2 Indecent Assault on male U.13
147 Possession of indecent images
of children
|
3
months’ imprisonment
49 TIC
|
13.07.2001
|
G
|
Gwent
|
Housemaster/care
worker
|
1
Attempt Buggery
4 Indecent Assaults on males U.16
1 Indecency with a child
|
Newport
Crown Court
8 years imprisonment
|
00.02.2000
|
NG
|
|
Housemaster
|
3
Buggeries on males U.16
5 Indecent Assaults on males U.16
1 Gross Indecency
|
Newport
Crown Court
15 years imprisonment
|
00.02.2000
|
NG
|
|
Teacher
|
1
Buggery on male
|
Leeds
Crown Court
5 years imprisonment
|
00.08.2000
|
NG
|
Humberside
|
Head
of residential care
|
2
Indecent Assaults
|
On
court bail
|
|
|
Lancashire
|
Headmaster
|
4
Indecent Assaults
|
3
years’ imprisonment
|
—
|
NG
|
|
Priest
|
9
Indecent Assaults
|
2
years’ imprisonment
|
—
|
G
|
|
Priest
|
5
Indecent Assaults
|
5
years’ imprisonment
|
—
|
G
& NG
|
|
DSS
Employee
|
Misuse
Computer DH Pervert Course of Justice in child abuse trial
|
Awaiting
sentence
|
|
G
|
Lincolnshire
|
Unemployed
|
9
Indecent Assaults on males O.16
2 Rapes on a male O.16
1 Indecent Assault on female 16 years
|
Lincoln
Crown Court
12 years imprisonment
|
14.09.2000
|
NG
|
|
Nanny
|
4
Indecent Assaults on female U.13
1 At/Rape on female U.13
2 Indecent Assaults on male U.16
|
Lincoln
Crown Court
6 years imprisonment
|
23.10.2000
|
G
|
Northumbria
|
Care
Worker
|
2
Indecent Assaults
|
2
years’ imprisonment
|
07.07.2000
|
NG
|
|
Foster
Brother
|
2
Indecent Assaults
2 Unlawful Sexual Intercourse
|
12
months’ imprisonment suspended 2 years
|
08.05.2000
|
NG
|
|
Care
Worker
|
6
Indecent Assaults
|
3
years’ imprisonment
|
07.07.2000
|
NG
|
|
Care
Worker
|
4
Indecent Assaults, Buggery
|
8
years’ imprisonment
|
16.11.2000
|
NG
|
|
Care
Worker
|
18
Indecent Assaults, 4 Rapes
|
6
years’ imprisonment
|
19.12.2000
|
NG
|
|
Care
Worker
|
10
Indecent Assaults, 2 Buggery
|
6
years’ imprisonment
|
24.08.2001
|
G
|
South
Wales
|
Volunteer,
John Kane
|
9
Indecent Assaults on males U.16—9TIC
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
15 years reduced on appeal to 12 years’ imprisonment
|
13.03.1998
|
G
|
|
Officer
in Charge, Crosland’s
|
1
SECT, 1 Cruelty
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
9 months suspended
|
16.07.1999
|
G
|
|
Residential
Social Worker, Crosland’s
|
2
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
1 Buggery on male U.16
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
3 years 6 months’ imprisonment
|
10.07.1999
|
G
|
|
Residential
Social Worker, Crosland’s
|
7
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
3 years 6 months’ imprisonment
|
16.07.1999
|
G
|
|
Housefather,
Headlands
|
11
Buggery on males U.16
4 Indecent Assaults on males U.16
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
7 years imprisonment
|
24.09.1999
|
NG
|
|
Headmaster,
Brydon
|
1
Buggery on male U.16
1 At/Buggery on males U.16
18 Indecent Assaults on males U.16
5 Child cruelty
2 ABH on children
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
total 14 years’ imprisonment reduced to 12 years 3 months
Appeal against conviction dismissed
|
22.11.1999
|
NG
|
|
Housefather,
Headlands
|
8
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
|
Newport
Crown Court
4 years 6 months’ imprisonment
|
05.04.2000
|
NG
|
|
Housemaster,
Brynydon
|
10
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
3 Buggery on males U.16
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
8 years imprisonment
|
20.12.2000
|
G
|
|
Housefather,
Headlands and John Kane
|
18
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
2 Buggery on males U.16
2 Att/Buggery on males U.16
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
10 years imprisonment
|
11.05.2001
|
NG
|
|
Housemaster,
Brynydon
|
8
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
4 Buggery on males U.16 (also Operation Lentisk Devon & Cornwall
additional 12 Indecent Assaults on males U.16)
3 Buggery on males U.16
1 Att/Buggery on males U.16
|
Exeter
Crown Court
15 years imprisonment
|
14.05.2001
|
NG
|
|
Housefather,
Headlands
|
7
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
7 years imprisonment
|
26.07.2001
|
NG
|
|
Housefather,
Penhill
|
3
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
3 Buggery on males U.16
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
8 years 6 months’ imprisonment
|
06.12.2001
|
NG
|
|
Residential
Social Worker, Taff Vale
|
3
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
1 Indecent Assault on female U.16
2 Buggery on males U.16
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
15 years imprisonment
Appeal against conviction dismissed
|
26.05.1999
|
NG
|
Staffordshire
|
Residential
Social Worker, Taff Vale
|
3
Buggery on males U.16
7 Indecent Assaults on males U.16
|
Cardiff
Crown Court
12 years imprisonment
|
27.05.1999
|
G
|
Surrey
|
Social
Worker
|
16
Rape and Indecent Assault on females U.16
|
Guildford
Crown Court
12 years imprisonment
|
29.10.1999
|
NG
|
|
Care
Worker
|
17
Rape, False Imprisonment and Indecent Assault on males U.16
|
Central
Criminal Court
7 years imprisonment
|
23.11.2000
|
NG
|
West
Midlands
|
Night-watchman
|
3
Buggery
7 Indecent Assaults on males U.16
|
Birmingham
Crown Court
8 years imprisonment
|
26.10.2001
|
NG
|
|
Night-watchman
|
5
Indecent Assaults on males U.16
|
Birmingham
Crown Court
7 years imprisonment
|
28.09.2001
|
NG
|
APPENDIX B
OPERATION BUGLE
The
above-named Operation was set up to investigate allegations concerning
Danesford Children's Home in Congleton.
The
Home closed in 1991.
The
school register shows you as having spent time at the Home.
Officers
from the Operation would like to speak with you regarding your attendance,
whether you have or have not any relevant information. The interview will
be in strict confidence and at a location suitable to you.
Please
contact the below-named Officer on [telephone number]. This is also an
answerphone for messages left after 4 pm.
Yours
sincerely
OPERATION ROSE
Northumbria
Police are currently engaged in a major investigation into allegations of
abuse, which took place several years ago, in children's homes in the North
East of England. I am informed that you were a resident of a children's
home in our Police area, prior to attaining the age of 18 years.
We
are writing to former residents to give you the opportunity of bringing to
our attention, any information you may have concerning yourselves, other
residents or staff members.
We
would therefore ask that if you have any information to offer or wish to
speak to a Police officer in relation to our enquiry, you complete and
return the enclosed pro-forma in the prepaid envelope or contact our
incident room on [telephone number]. You can leave a message on our answer
machine when the room is closed and we will contact you as soon as
possible.
All
replies will be treated in the strictest confidence.
Yours
faithfully,
Detective
Chief Superintendent
OPERATION CARE
I
am the Senior Investigating Officer of the above operation which is
currently investigating allegations of child abuse reported to have taken
place within a number of residential establishments in the Merseyside area.
I
am aware from records provided to me that in times past you have been a
resident at St Georges/Clarence House School situated in the Formby area of
Merseyside, whilst in the care of the local authority. I am concerned that
there is a possibility that such abuse may have taken place whilst you were
in residence there.
If
you have any information or if we can help you with any complaint you may
have, please respond by completing and returning the attached slip using
the enclosed pre-paid envelope or by contacting a member of my staff using
the above telephone number.
May
I take this opportunity of assuring you that any information given or
complaint made will be treated in the strictest confidence.
If
you do not wish to communicate with the Police or Social Services at this
time, but feel you would like to discuss any events which have taken place,
you may wish to use the independent and confidential counselling service
offered by Barnardos Counselling 0151 707 1327. If they cannot assist I am
sure they can put you in touch with a counselling service which can.
Please
reply by 17 July 2000.
Thank
you for your assistance in this matter.
Yours
faithfully,
Detective
Chief Inspector
APPENDIX C
By Richard Spencer, PA News
Police
and social workers investigating allegations of sex abuse at a former
children's home today issued an appeal for 1,250 former residents to
contact a special telephone hotline.
Chris
Brabs, director of Calderdale social services, said 250 of the 1,500 people
who stayed at Skircoat Lodge, in Halifax, over the last 20 years had so far
been contacted.
Two
former employees at the home have been arrested and remanded by Calderdale
Magistrates Court on a series of child sex abuse charges.
The
charges followed complaints to a joint police and social services
investigation team, code-named Operation Screen, which was set up 12 months
ago to look into allegations made by former residents.
A
telephone hotline has now been established to try to encourage former
residents to talk about their experience at the home.
Mr
Brabs said former residents could be living anywhere in the country and
urged them to get in touch.
"My
heart goes out to those who have had the courage to come forward, and we
are providing support and counselling to help them cope with their
experiences."
Urging
other victims to get in touch, he added: "We know many people find it
very painful to talk about the past, but they can be reassured that the staff
are specially trained and will deal with any approaches sensitively and
confidentially.
"We
will leave no stone unturned until we have established what happened at
Skircoat Lodge and taken any necessary action."
The
telephone hotline for former residents has been set up on 01422 365948. It
will be open between 4 pm and 8 pm from today to Friday 27 November.
APPENDIX D
POLICE FORCES RESPONSES—INVESTIGATIONS INTO
HISTORIC INSTITUTIONAL CHILD ABUSE
HOME AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
Force
|
How Many Charged
|
Finalised in Court
|
Pleaded Guilty
|
Pleaded Not Guilty
|
Dismissed by a Judge
|
Not Proceeded with on Health Grounds
|
Not Proceeded with—Abuse of Process
|
Acquitted by a Jury
|
Going to appeal—Criminal Cases Review
Commission
|
Awaiting trial inc in column 1
|
Avon
& Somerset
|
5
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
Cambridgeshire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheshire
|
11
|
4
|
1
|
10
|
3
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
Cumbria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devon
& Cornwall
11
|
9
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
Durham
|
1
|
1
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Dyfed-Powys
|
0
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
0
|
N/a
|
0
|
0
|
Gloucestershire
|
3
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
Greater
Manchester
6
|
|
3
|
1
|
5
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
Gwent
|
6
|
6
|
1
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
Hampshire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humberside
|
3
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
No
|
0
|
Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lancashire
|
15
|
12
|
3
|
6
|
6
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
Leicestershire
|
4
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Lincolnshire
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
(1
Died)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Merseyside
|
67
|
63
|
24
|
11
|
10
|
6
|
2
|
9
|
1
|
0
|
Metropolitan
|
12
|
10
|
2
|
8
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Norfolk
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Northumbria
|
29?
|
26
|
1
|
5
|
7
|
2
(Died)
|
3
|
5
|
0
|
1
|
North
Wales
|
14
|
14
|
2
|
12
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
North
Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nottinghamshire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South
Wales
|
34
|
15
|
6
|
21
|
0
|
2
(Died)
|
2
|
9
|
0
|
6
|
South
Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staffordshire
|
8
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
Suffolk
|
0
|
0
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
N/a
|
0
|
Surrey
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
West
Mercia
|
17
|
10
|
8
|
8
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
No
|
0
|
West
Midlands
|
3
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
Wiltshire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
226
|
189
|
55
|
108
|
30
|
17
|
12
|
39
|
3
|
13
|
2
2 "Setting
The Boundaries"-Reforming the law on sex offences. Home Office,
July 2000. "Lost In Care"-Report
of the Tribunal into the abuse of children in care in the former county
council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974 (Sept 1999).4 Recommendation 20 (paragraph 3.6.6).5 Chapter 33, paragraph 33.39 (summary document).
6 Chapter 55, paragraph 58(i).7 Chapter 55, paragraph 58(ii). 8 "Trial judges' readiness to hear cases separately denies
juries crucial information about the extent of the allegations made against
some serial rapists." Tessa Jowell M.P., 12 June 1996, 187 H.C.,
CD115. 9 R v Smith (G.J.), 11 Cr. App.
R. 229, CCA 10 Subject of Dispatches "Getting
away with Rape" Channel 4, 16 February 1994, referred to by
Professor McEwan, CLR [1997], 96. 11
While this case might seem to make a point about severance, the issue was
essentially one of "similar fact": the evidence of the different
allegations was ruled not to be cross-admissable on the basis that the
allegations were not sufficiently similar to be categorised as "similar
fact". This finding underpinned the order for severance.12 Between 1999 and 2000 nearly 8,500 cases of rape were reported
to the police. Out of that number just 634 convictions were secured, that
is just 7.5 per cent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid-1580000/1580490.stm.
When one considers the number of offences that are likely to go unreported
the picture is even more bleak. 13 X
and Y v Netherlands (1985) 8 EHRR 235. 14 Cited in Emily Henderson's paper, "Evidence of
Previous Misconduct", submitted as part of the ACPO submissions to
Lord Justice Auld.
|
