F.A.C.T.

(Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers)

Abuse in North Wales Children’s Homes – the Untold Story

AD HOC PRESENTATION TO MEMBERS OF THE WELSH ASSEMBLY

4th November 2003

Context: This presentation was made following publication of the Lost in Care Report (Feb 2000) which detailed allegations
of abuse in children’s homes throughout North Wales.

Welcome
F.A.C.T. is a national organisation which campaigns for carers and teachers who have been falsely accused or
wrongly convicted of child abuse. It has a strong presence throughout Wales

Opening remarks
It is important that I make two things very clear.

Firstly, F.A.C.T. accepts that, sadly, many children are abused including, on occasions, by their carers and by
their teachers. We also accept that some of the children in Wales who were formerly in care or looked after by
local authorities were abused or did not receive 'good enough' care or education. Based on good evidence and
detailed examination of cases it is our belief that the extent to which children were abused in Wales (and
elsewhere) is greatly exaggerated. It is also clear to us that claims of abuse have been formulated on the basis
of unreliable and at times dishonest evidence, and on unjust and poor models of investigative practice. Despite
what is said by children's support groups it is in fact very easy for children (or adults) to confabulate, and
worse still, to tell lies about their past experiences. Conversely it is extremely hard, almost impossible, for
individuals to defend allegations of abuse which are said to have occurred 10, 15, 20, or even 30 years
previously. Could you adequately account for your personal conduct with individuals 5 years ago, let alone 25?
It is also very difficult to provide evidence in your defence for something that did not happen.

Secondly, I wish to make it clear that F.A.C.T. and those who support us, abhor abuse of any type. We do not
excuse anyone who has abused children nor do we support paedophilia. Our message is simple - carers and
teachers are especially vulnerable to allegations of abuse which are false. The pendulum has swung too far - it
is time society, and dare I say, politicians, realise that false allegations are made, and that the fear of false
allegations is destroying the essential trust between children and adults. Furthermore false allegations harm
children and destroy family life. False allegations blight families and ruin children's lives. Children who are
taught or looked after by falsely accused carers or teachers have their care or education disrupted, sometimes
for months at a time. Accused parents are invariably denied contact with their own children and marriages are
put under considerable strain. We now live in a world where, in this country, parents and grand parents are
afraid to even touch their own children. In some schools pupils are now permanently monitored by closed
circuit television, in part to "eliminate the risk of false allegations". The effect on recruitment has been
considerable. Social Services Departments in Wales are having to recruit from abroad including from locations
where police checks may not be reliable. People are now very wary of volunteering for public service involving
children. Unwilling to offer help for fear their motives will be misinterpreted. We can't secure enough social
workers or teachers, men no longer want to work in primary schools, and local authorities in Wales have fewer
foster parents on their books than they did 5 years ago. That is not the kind of society we want to live in, nor is
it one that politicians should promote.
Political concern
It is obviously right that a caring society should be concerned about the extent to which children have been
abused by those entrusted to look after or help them. While accepting that child abuse occurs in all walks of
life, and in the institutions of the State, there is however considerable evidence here and abroad that many
people have been wrongly accused. On the 23rd November 2001 Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, issued a
statement warning that the convictions of dozens of men charged with child sexual assault, years after the
alleged offences, may be unsafe. There is now a growing lobby of distinguished academics, journalists, lawyers,
professionals, and politicians, who share this view. Hundreds of men and women who protest their innocence
from prison and countless more who have been falsely accused agree with them. Significantly an increasing
number of former pupils/residents, who themselves have been interviewed by the police, have expressed
concerns about their investigative methods. Senior police officers have also voiced their concerns.

Parliament itself has acknowledged that there is a problem. The All Party Group on Abuse Investigations
chaired by Clare Curtis-Thomas, MP for Crosby, has done valuable work in bringing to the notice of the public
widespread concern regarding evidence of investigative malpractice by the police, local authorities and child
protection agencies. Abuse cases now represent the greater proportion of cases now referred to the Criminal
Cases Review Commission.

The Government have also been sufficiently concerned to ask the Home Affairs Select Committee to inquire
into The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children's Homes. In their report, they called for
a range of new safeguards to cover the investigation and trial of people accused of sexual abuse in children's
homes, including the audio and video taping of police interviews with victims. This might seem an
extraordinary measure to take but it is now considered to be necessary that the investigators are seen to act
properly - no longer can they be trusted to carry out a fair and objective interview. The Committee have also
called for anonymity for the accused - a fairly low cost solution that would have benefits for all sides.

The Select Committee's overall conclusion was that a new genre of miscarriages of justice had arisen by the
"over enthusiastic pursuit of abuse allegations" and that a large number of innocent people have had their
lives ruined. What is significant about this report is that it demonstrated that North Wales police were the
worst offenders in being over-enthusiastic in their pursuit of allegations. It also demonstrated that, according
to the evidence given by a number of complainants, South Wales Police used unacceptable methods to secure
complaints. The report also provided evidence that within Wales some individuals were motivated to make
false allegations by the prospect of compensation.

The Home Affairs Select Committee were also informed of several cases which have given rise to concern.
These included the case of David Jones, an ex carer and former manager of Southampton football club who
was accused of 20 counts of physical and sexual assault. Mr Jones was able to utterly discredit the prosecution
before it got to full trial, and a week before his trial his case was withdrawn. Particular criticism was made of
the police method of investigation by which they trawl for unreported crimes - a method they borrowed from
North Wales police. Trawling is a form of touting for complaints and a methodology that is, as the Home Affairs
Select Committee commented, open to abuse.

The wider picture

The well-publicised case of David Jones is also important in that it followed the new mantra of obtaining
convictions by volume. The underlying approach is; if you stack up sufficient numbers of charges (even of
doubtful quality) those who hear them will think there is no smoke without fire and will convict. This attitude
is very prevalent among child protection agencies. What happens in practice is that allegations are not
examined with sufficient rigour and short cuts are taken in following the correct procedure and in gathering
the evidence. Judges and juries are now becoming more aware of this and there are now several cases where
individuals accused of multiple offences have been able to demonstrate their total innocence.

One such case, which ought to be compulsory reading for every government department concerned about
child abuse, every local authority, and every child protection agency, is the case involving two trained nursery
nurses, Christopher Reed and Dawn Lillie, who both worked for Newcastle City Council. A concerned mother
made a complaint about the care given to her 2 year old child. Over time this single complaint led to them
both being accused of multiple offences against several young children who for the most part did not have the
necessary language skills to make complaints themselves but relied on parents or professionals to ensure their
best interests. Reed and Lillie were eventually taken to Court, and after a lengthy trial cleared of all charges.
Although acquitted in a criminal trial the local authority that employed them publicly announced that it
believed them not only to be guilty of the horrific acts for which they were charged but also of supplying
children to a paedophile ring.

Supported by various action groups the Council set up a panel of independent experts to review the evidence
and inquire into the matter. The subsequent report restated the belief that the two nursery nurses were
indeed guilty. A single complaint from one concerned mother had turned into allegations that they had
seriously abused 350 children.

This news led to further outrage and a condemnation of the two nursery nurses by the Home Secretary, Cherie
Booth, Hilary Clinton, Ester Rantzen, and many others. With this in mind the Government responded with two
Acts of Parliament, Protection of Children Act 1999 and the Youth and Justice Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

Nobody it seemed considered the possibility that the Court was right all along, and that Reed and Lillie were
indeed innocent. As in North Wales the press had a field day - "help us find these fiends". They, like many
people in North Wales, had to abandon their homes genuinely fearful of their safety. Separately they went into
hiding. Eventually they were tracked down by an investigative journalist, Bob Woffinden, and Richard Webster
an author who has written extensively on the injustice of the child abuse investigations. Having studied the
evidence they believed in their innocence, gained their trust, and put them in touch with lawyers.

A decision was taken to sue the Council, the authors of the report, and the local press for libel - this being their
only avenue to publicly clear their name. The case lasted 73 days, and the judge ruled in their favour. Mr
Justice Eady said they "merited an award at the highest permitted level" against the four authors of a report
which contained "untrue" allegations of the "utmost gravity". He said: "Indeed, they have earned it several
times over because of the scale, gravity and persistence of the allegations ... what matters primarily is that
they are entitled to be vindicated and recognised as innocent citizens who should, in my judgement, be free to
exist for what remains of their lives untouched by the stigma of child abuse." In doing so the Judge accused the
investigative team of not approaching their task with an open mind, of manipulating the evidence to suit their
own prejudices, and of making statements which they knew to be untrue. He concluded that they had acted
with malice and found against them. The repercussions of what the Judge called the rather sloppy child
protection approach to investigation of complaints, are now being felt in all local authorities.

I have given some attention to this case because although extreme it demonstrates what is common practice
in other local authorities. Unfortunately child abuse investigations start with a presumption of guilt and a
suspension of disbelief. This is another graphic illustration of how the police, investigative and prosecuting
bodies, and the child protection community can get things seriously wrong. What is needed is a better
investigative model. We in F.A.C.T. accept that abuse occurs - all we ask is that others accept that sometimes
false allegations are made and that the investigative processes are often flawed.
Note: Since this time the scandal of the cot death mothers (Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings) each
of whom were falsely accused of murdering their children, has come to prominence. There can be no clearer
demonstration that the investigative agencies do sometimes get it seriously wrong and that when they do it
has devastating consequences.

The position in South Wales

The position is South Wales is in many ways typical of the position elsewhere.

The South Wales police have been subject of severe criticisms for their investigative practice. Indeed several
former residents in care have criticised them for their overzealous approach. Some have also reported that in
order to obtain information the police raised the prospect of them receiving compensation - something which
is contrary to good police practice. More recently the South Wales Police have been severely criticised for the
quality of its investigations in relation to the 'Cardiff three' and other murder investigations. Whilst these cases
are not directly related to the investigations of false abuse allegations they do provide corroborative evidence
that some South Wales police have a cavalier attitude towards investigative practice and adopt a presumption
of guilt.

In South Wales the case of Derek Brushett, a former Headteacher, and other care staff continue to give rise to
concern. His case and others in South Wales are soon to be presented to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission.

The position in North Wales

The position in North Wales has been dominated by the Lost In Care (Waterhouse Report

We accept that some children in North Wales were abused whilst in care and that the system failed them at all
levels. It is perhaps not generally understood that Sir Ronald Waterhouse found no evidence of a paedophile
ring existing in North Wales. It is also the case that he found comparatively little evidence of criminal abuse
which was not already known prior to the inquiry starting. This fact does not fit easily with the widely held
view that abuse was covered up.

Whilst we would support many of the recommendations that Sir Ronald Waterhouse has made there have
been serious objections to the way in which he carried out his investigation. It is clear from the opening
statement there was a presumption of guilt and that Counsel for the Tribunal would act as the prosecuting
body rather than as independent investigators. The Inquiry's terms of reference were such that the accused
and others, including former clients who wanted to provide evidence of good practice, were unable to do so -
on the grounds that it was an inquiry into abuse not an inquiry into the conduct of the homes both good and
bad.

Some experts who wished to challenge some of the assumptions implicit in the terms were not allowed to give
evidence. As a result some key areas were not covered. These included the extent to which compensation may
have been a factor, and the extent to which investigative methodology and therapeutic intervention may have
generated unreliable, exaggerated or false complaints. Both of these issues are now accepted as being a
significant cause of false allegations yet Sir Ronald Waterhouse rebuked Counsel for suggesting that the
prospect of compensation was an important factor. This rebuke was given despite the fact that he had
evidence that a complainant had admitted making a false allegation in order to gain compensation, and
despite the fact that a former resident had indicated that it was police practice to suggest that if they made a
complaint compensation would be forthcoming. Common sense tells us that the prospect of compensation is
likely to generate false allegations.
It is well known that before the Waterhouse Inquiry started councillors on Clwyd County Council were
recommending that victims be compensated. The often repeated assertion by child care agencies and victim
support groups that complainants do NOT seek compensation is not borne out by the fact that millions of
pounds have been paid out in compensation in North Wales and other areas. To be fair Sir Ronald Waterhouse
has recently made it clear that the investigative process must not, as it has in the past, be contaminated by the
thought of financial gain.

There can be no doubt that financial greed figures as a strong incentive to make exaggerated or false
allegations. The evidence for this is supported by the fact that:-

1. The principal complainant in the Waterhouse Inquiry is himself due to stand trial accused of
embezzling funds given by local authorities and others to the victim support groups.
2. A leading solicitor for claimants in the Waterhouse Inquiry has himself been imprisoned for
misappropriating clients funds.
3. Furthermore F.A.C.T. has obtained evidence that a solicitor offered at least one claimant £50 each
time he introduced further claimants to his firm.

There is increasing evidence at home and abroad that therapeutic intervention in the form of counselling or
victim support can unwittingly trigger unreliable or false allegations. This has led to serious criticisms of the
behaviour of professionals involved in supporting victims of abuse. Anyone who has read the Judgement of the
Newcastle nursery nurse libel case would have no doubt about the power of professionals to suggest abuse
took place when it didn't.

In so far as it is ever possible to defend oneself against historical complaints, especially when there is unlikely
to be any corroborative or forensic evidence, it is generally assumed that those accused of misconduct were
given a proper opportunity to defend themselves. This is not the case. They were not allowed to call witnesses
on their own behalf and were given very little opportunity to cross examine complainants, many of whom did
not turn up and therefore could not be challenged.

Those local authority workers accused of abuse by the Waterhouse Inquiry were also seriously hampered
because the local authority they worked for - Clwyd or Gwynedd no longer existed. The approach of the
successor authorities was not only to protect their own interests but also to make capital out of the alleged
failings of the former County Councils. Workers were also at a legal disadvantage in that they had to face as
many as 12 Q.C's. whilst they were represented by just one QC and a junior. Nor is it equitable that the one QC
allocated to represent the majority of the accused had to represent over a hundred individuals.

Failure to meet its own test of reliability

F.A.C.T. is also critical of the Waterhouse Inquiry in two other respects. Firstly it failed to meet its own test of
reliability. When the Inquiry was set up Sir Ronald Waterhouse indicated that its first duty was to "assess the
scale of abuse because it was feared that "abuse has occurred on a much wider scale than was revealed in the
criminal trials."

As a result a random sample was identified, of 600 adults who had been in care in the two counties of Clwyd
and Gwynedd during the period under scrutiny, but who had made no complaints. The view taken was that by
'cold calling' the 'random 600' it would be possible to show that complainants had not been motivated to
complain by money, publicity or external encouragement, and that it would provide a more accurate test of
the extent to which abuse occurred.
One might have expected that this very reasonable approach would therefore have figured in the inquiry's
overall assessment of the extent to which abuse had occurred. Although the existence of the random 600 is
acknowledged in this report (Appendix 4, on page 870) no clue is given as to the outcome of the Tribunal's
approach. In fact, on day 190 of the Tribunal proceedings, junior counsel to the Tribunal, Mr Treverton-Jones,
belatedly admitted to the Chairman that the attempt to trace and interview 600 randomly selected potential
witnesses had been abandoned after only 111 people had been contacted because very few had made
allegations of abuse and it "was not adding substantially to the sum of knowledge available to the Tribunal".

In fact of the 111 people contacted only five witnesses gave evidence to the Tribunal. Four of these made
allegations which were either lacking in any convincing detail, or which appeared, on the basis of other
evidence that emerged during cross-examination, to have been fabricated, leaving one relatively minor
complaint of abuse that appeared to have any substance. In other words the 'random 600' inquiry, produced
not a single credible witness alleging serious physical or sexual abuse. If the Tribunal had indeed been
concerned to conduct an open-minded inquiry they would have persevered with the exercise and the evidence
above should have been part of the enquiry report.

Perhaps our most stinging criticism of the Waterhouse Inquiry is that there was, and is, no avenue of appeal
against its findings. This is not only contrary to the rules of natural justice and an affront to human rights but is,
of itself, an abuse of State power. There are several innocent people whose lives, and that of their families,
have been forever ruined by this report. To be left with no redress is a shameful indictment on British justice.
Despite the lack of appeal against Sir Ronald Waterhouse's specific findings at least two individuals who were
named in the Waterhouse Report, have been able to overturn the Secretary of State's decision that they were
unsuitable persons to work with children. In both cases the persons concerned were able to demonstrate that
allegations made to the Waterhouse Inquiry were completely unreliable or false.

What can politicians do?

There is very little that can be done now to remedy the wrongs of the Waterhouse Inquiry. Those of us
affected by it have to live with its consequences. Our message though is a simple one. The pendulum has
swung too far in favour of complainants, and greater attention needs to be given to recognising the fact that
carers and teachers are not only extremely vulnerable to abuse allegations which may be false but also
vulnerable to investigative malpractice and "professional's" prejudice.

It is a matter of concern to us that the possibility that some allegations may be false does not appear in any of
the subsequent reports and policy documents issued by the Assembly, or by Local Authorities. Indeed in a
report commissioned by the Welsh Assembly which considered allegations of abuse in the Children's health
service establishments there is the remarkable phrase "It is not for us to judge whether any of the allegations
are true" Somewhat tongue in cheek, I fear, the report was titled Too Serious a Thing.

The duty of investigators and those appointed to inquire into issues of concern is to examine both the
evidence which supports that concern and the evidence which moves away from that concern. We are
concerned that it appears impossible to talk about false allegations and child protection in the same sentence.
They are not mutually exclusive concepts. False allegations serve no ones interests and are, as we have
demonstrated, an issue of child protection and public concern.

We call on the Welsh Assembly and Local Authorities in Wales to:-

1. take the lead in developing a more effective and ethical, evidence based child protection investigative
model which not only protects children and ensures the guilty are identified, but also protects the
innocent from false allegations.
 2. ensure that whenever guidance is given, or reports are commissioned on, complaints or allegations of
abuse, consideration is given to the possibility that the allegations made may be untrue or may have
been compromised by poor investigative practice or by the involvement of professionals anxious to
support the complainant.
3. ensure personnel officers and human resource managers only appoint as Investigating Officers in
disciplinary proceedings involving allegations of abuse, those who have received training on evidence
based investigative practice, including in the area of distinguishing between allegations which can be
supported, and those that cannot.
4. ensure that all local authorities in Wales establish sensitive and just suspension policies, and
recognise that the fear being accused of abuse, or of being falsely accused, has major health and
safety implications for the work force.
5. ensure all local authorities, education departments and school governing bodies in Wales submit their
suspension policies to the Assembly for examination.
6. ensure all child protection workers receive specific training aimed at enabling them to better
distinguish between true and false allegations.
7. ensure all local authorities in Wales take positive action to monitor the extent to which false,
unreliable or unsubstantiated allegations are made and by whom.
8. provide general support for the idea that the witness statements taken by the police and other
investigative bodies are video- and audio-taped.
9. provide general support for the idea that anonymity is granted to people accused of sexual abuse up
until the case has been decided

Note. F.A.C.T. is grateful to Richard Webster author of the Secret of Bryn Estyn for allowing use of background
information in this report.

This presentation was made by three F.A.C.T. members to a group of Assembly Members representing all the
main parties in Wales on the 4th November 2003. The presentation was not however formally part of the
Assembly's business. We are grateful to Janet Ryder A.M. for the invitation to make this presentation.