Monday 12 September 2016

Departing judge says child abuse inquiry has ‘inherent problem’

12.09.16
 
 
The inquiry into historic allegations of child sexual abuse suffers from an “inherent problem” because its scope is too large, its former chair has said. 
 
Justice Lowell Goddard, who resigned in August, submitted a memo to the Home Affairs Select Committee setting out what she saw as the problems with the inquiry.

“It is clear there is an inherent problem in the sheer scale and size of the inquiry (which its budget does not match) and therefore in its manageability,” she said.

“Its boundless compass, including as it does, every state and non-state institution, as well as relevant institutional contexts, coupled with the absence of any built-in time parameters, does not fit comfortably or practically within the single inquiry model in which it currently resides. Nor is delivery on the limitless extent of all of the aspirations in its terms of reference possible in any cohesive or comprehensive manner.”

Justice Goddard said her departure should be an opportunity for a review of the inquiry. She added that after the inquiry was reconstituted under her leadership, it “proved in operational terms not to be a new inquiry with a completely fresh start, but rather a continuation and expansion of the previously existing inquiry in terms of its administration and management”.

The former chair said she was not consulted in the recruitment of additional staff for the new inquiry and some of the staff were unsuitable because they had no previous experience of running an inquiry of this kind. She also said that the inquiry’s public communications strategy needs to be “radically strengthened” in the future.

The inquiry suffered a further blow after victims’ groups threatened to boycott it. Raymond Stevenson, of the Shirley Oaks’ Survivors Association, said there was no guarantee that the inquiry’s investigation into the treatment of children in care in Lambeth was “truly independent” because the Home Office were heavily involved in both this inquiry and previous investigations.

John McCabe, a spokesperson for victims of alleged abuse at Medomsley detention centre, said he was urging victims and their lawyers to boycott the inquiry because it was not taking evidence from victims who were abused over the age of 18.

Source

Bar on evidence of Medomsley inmates is a slap in the face for victims of abuse


Lowell Goddard, who resigned as head of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in August, suggested that it should be remodelled to focus it ‘more towards current events and thus focusing major attention on the present and future protection of children’. Photograph: Ben Pruchnie/Getty Images

Almost three years ago I was asked by Durham constabulary to advise on detention centre regimes as background to an investigation of allegations of abuse at HM detention centre Medomsley. Its work was later taken over by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Now we learn (Victims threatening boycott of child abuse inquiry, 9 September) that the inquiry’s terms of reference preclude them from hearing evidence from those who were 18 or over at the time, though it will consider behaviour commencing before the age of 18.

Until 1970 the age of majority in the UK was set at 21. Medomsley was classified as a senior detention centre and thus held those between the ages of 17 and 21, all of them children as the law then stood. Medomsley opened in 1961, so the inquiry’s terms of reference will preclude about nine years’ worth of serious allegations, except for those made by a few former trainees at the very lowest end of the age scale.

Almost three years ago I was asked by Durham constabulary to advise on detention centre regimes as background to an investigation of allegations of abuse at HM detention centre Medomsley. Its work was later taken over by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Now we learn (Victims threatening boycott of child abuse inquiry, 9 September) that the inquiry’s terms of reference preclude them from hearing evidence from those who were 18 or over at the time, though it will consider behaviour commencing before the age of 18.

Until 1970 the age of majority in the UK was set at 21. Medomsley was classified as a senior detention centre and thus held those between the ages of 17 and 21, all of them children as the law then stood. Medomsley opened in 1961, so the inquiry’s terms of reference will preclude about nine years’ worth of serious allegations, except for those made by a few former trainees at the very lowest end of the age scale.


A Durham team was sensitively handling very many serious allegations and had worked hard to gain the confidence of former trainees. Now, three years on, the latter are to be given a metaphorical slap in the face. The inquiry’s terms of reference should be amended so as to avoid inflicting another form of abuse upon those traumatised individuals who seemingly misplaced their trust in the system by coming forward in the first place. 
Peter Quinn
 (Former prison governor)
Helperby, North Yorkshire

Lowell Goddard makes a plea for the independent inquiry into sex abuse to focus on the future protection of children vulnerable to abuse, while Eric Allison and Simon Hattenstone argue passionately for those previously abused while in the care of the state to be heard. While it may be that such unchecked, terrible abuse in a state institution is a thing of the past, the attitude to the “bad” boys and girls in our custodial institutions has changed little over the years.

Where was the public outrage following the Panorama programme earlier this year about the treatment of children in a secure training centre? And why, despite a change in management and reassurances from government, did the recent inspection report on the same centre still express grave concerns? Children in custody, whatever crime they have committed, are in the care of the state, and the state has a duty to treat them with respect; it is only a small step from lack of care and respect to actual abuse. The lack of concern for and interest in these children may create a climate where such abuse is not only a thing of history.
Pam Hibbert
Llangammarch Wells, Powys

Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Source