I now turn to the Memorandum
from Northumbria Police to the Home Affairs Committee in 2002.
Part 3
MEMORANDUM 44
Submitted by Chris Machell, Detective Chief
Superintendent, Northumbria Police (CA 188)
“Operation Rose, an enquiry conducted by
Northumbria Police into allegations of Historic Sexual and Physical Child Abuse
within care homes throughout the North East of England, began in 1997.
The
investigation commenced after a woman in her twenties disclosed to a Social
Worker, that she and a friend had both been subjected to Sexual and Physical
abuse whilst they were residents in a Newcastle upon Tyne care home.
(It has
not been established if this is the same young woman whose experience is
described by Tim Tate in his book Slave Girl and who was subsequently
trafficked to Holland. I did have communication and received information about a
young woman in strictest confidence from someone who lived in Sunderland
1997-2002 and who was in contact with a London based special police unit and
who assisted Sunderland former Children, and who also investigated a high-profile
Newcastle based paedophile ring about which she had contacted me. She was also in contact with the Sunderland
Echo, The Newcastle Journal and Evening Chronicle and the regional Sunday Sun
and Northern Echo which had focussed on related issues over the decade. The
Shields Gazette also did so to a more limited extent as did BBC Look North and
ITV Tyne Tees News).
“After a multi-agency meeting between
Police, Newcastle Social Services and
the NSPCC, officers set out to fully investigate the claims. Initial
enquiries revealed that six victims were alleging abuse by eight suspects who
had been employed in a total of seven Care Homes within four Local Authority
areas. Some of these allegations dated back to the 1960s. The investigation
rapidly expanded to 10 victims and 20 Children's Homes. “
(Following my contact with the Secretary of
State in 1997 and the appointment of a link officer at the Department of Health,
Sunderland Council agreed an investigation conducted by the NSPCC and approval
was given for me to make a written submission and to interview which is
referred in the subsequent published report and which Sunderland Council has
placed on line (following your request via whatdotheyknow.com)
“Following best practice established in other
areas, Northumbria Police established that the only manageable way of
developing the enquiry would be to seek information from a fixed proportion of
residents in each of the Care Homes. “
(This was the situation in
relation to the North Wales and the Waterhouse Inquiry and means that
Waterhouse and Macur inquiries did not investigate why 69 children from Newcastle
who were placed in the homes of the now twice convicted and imprisoned owner.
There was also an unspecified number of children from Newcastle who were sent
to the homes on short term Intermediate treatment. Newcastle City Council undertook its own investigation
why this happened and I am aware that police from North Wales visited Newcastle
and checked on the position of children sent from the region. Convicted staff
in relation to Wales and Calderdale for example had also worked in homes in the
North East. Sometimes there was a follow up, sometimes this happened later,
sometimes it did not. At a branch meeting of the Association of Directors of
Social Services in the North East the Director of Social Services for Newcastle
recommended the placement of children in the Bryn Alyn homes mentioning the
hospitality received on a visit and which was available It is known that at
least one London Director of Social services also placed children Bryn Alyn
Homes.)
“Without revealing the nature of their investigations,
the enquiry team wrote to 10 per cent of former residents, informing them that
an enquiry had commenced into a Home at which they were once resident, and
asking them if they had any information which might help. One third of the
recipients replied either saying they had information or stating that they did
not wish the police to contact them.
“The courts
subsequently upheld the process, accepting that the letter simply sought
information and did not make suggestions to the recipients. No complaints of
malpractice were received and no allegations of collusion between victims has
been upheld. “
(At my meetings with
representatives of former children in care of Sunderland Council in 1997 it was
made clear that some of group did not want to have contact with the police and
therefore I recommended to the Secretary of State that the wishes of those who
did not want their experiences to be reported to the police should be
respected. Unfortunately, the NSPCC made a blunder which had distressing
consequences in that the NSPCC secretary sent to one survivor a copy of all the
statements of all the survivors intended for Northumbria Police and before the
mistake was discovered these statements were copied and circulated between
members of the group and I was advised this had happened. I therefore had no
alternative but to advise the appropriate authorities, and subsequently advised
the survivors and their lawyers of my action. My understanding is that the
statements were copied for the survivors by the Sunderland branch of the union
NALGO and not by the Sunderland Echo).
(I had only limited direct
involvement in the Operation Rose inquiry following contact from South Tyneside
Council for information in relation to one victim who had been for a time in a
home managed by the local authority)
“In 1998, the enquiry was
broadened to include renewed allegations concerning Carers working at
Witherwack House, Sunderland, which had been subject to an earlier
investigation in 1992.” (1992 is not correct as I met with Commander
Holder and Detective Chief Inspector Wilson in 1991 and attended a joint meeting
between Northumbria police and the Department of Health shortly afterwards,
setting up a unit of social workers at a secret location, securing
documentation and who worked alongside the investigating Northumbria Police
officers providing them with whatever documentation was required).
“Six people were found guilty of a
variety of charges and sentenced to a total of 20 years’ imprisonment,
including one 12-month sentence suspended for two years. Three suspected died
prior to trial. Several cases were
halted because the judiciary deemed that the length of time taken for the cases
to reach court breached Article 6 of the Human Rights Act, which requires a
hearing within a reasonable time.”
(I can provide a copy of the
press report in which the Trial judge provided several reasons why the
prosecutions could not proceed which included the death of one of the accused,
the number of previous investigations, the destruction of staff records at
Witherwack House when the home was demolished and evidence contamination)
(In launching the nationwide police investigations and reinvestigations
in 2014 and in setting up the original and subsequent Statutory Inquiry for
England and Wales the Government has repeatedly made it clear that that there
is no time limit obstacle to police investigations and subsequent judicial
proceedings if appropriate evidence is established.)
“Many delays, however, occurred because
of adjournments made at the request of defence lawyers and the courts
themselves. One "fast track" case—which should have been heard in 96
days took 33 months to come to court, despite all necessary Police work being
completed within the required deadlines. The final trial arising out of the
Operation Rose investigation concluded in April 2002.”
“All the agencies involved in the
enquiry, including the Crown Prosecution Service and the counselling services
provided for victims, have since reviewed the processes involved in the investigation.
Some of the "Good Practice Pointers" have been summarised as
requested and are attached to this letter.”
“My views in relation to four of the five
specific questions contained in the committee's press notice accord with those
expressed by Mr Grange on behalf of ACPO. Question two is a matter for the CPS
I believe.”
May 2002
Attachment
Good Practice Recommendations Generated from
Operation Rose
De-brief Meetings
1. *Early consultation, via
the National Crime Faculty, with officers who have investigated similar
allegations elsewhere.
2. *Involvement of Crown
Prosecution Service from the outset
3. *Consider tape recording
all victim’s interviews, not just children.
4. *Appointment of a team of
prosecution barristers to handle all cases.
5. *Judicial processes to
focus on speedy resolution of cases.
6. *Development of a
national protocol for the recording of unused material.
7. *Social Services
departments to consider retention of staff discipline records.
8. *Co-ordinated support for
victims before, during and after enquiries.
9. *The "Abuse of
Process" point inextricably linked to unused material. There must be
greater awareness within all agencies of this issue and a review of their
record keeping policies.
10. *Protocols like those
with Social Services should be put in place with Health Professionals and
counselling services for easier access to records “
In memorandum 2 to the Home Affairs Committee from
the Association of Chief Constables there is also information from Northumbria
Police but because of the importance of the submission and information included
from some Police authorities from throughout England and Wales it is attached
at the end of this writing.
I understand the continuing
frustration of survivors such as Mr Clare at not getting the answers to
questions about what happened to them as children and it is a matter of concern
that that it will be years before some of the general questions about cover up
by the state and other institutions will be answered. Survivors are motivated
by a wide range of issues and these are included in the summary of response to
the recent National Inquiry seminars on Accountability and Reparations.
“It is clear from the submissions that there is no “one size fits
all”. There are a variety of outcomes that victims/survivors seek from the
civil claims process. These include:
acknowledgment of the abuse having taken place;
acknowledgement of the harm done;
justice;
compensation;
access to counselling and therapeutic support;
an apology;
an independent and impartial investigation;
truth and accountability;
punishment of the abuser;
an admission of institutional failure;
a commitment to learning lessons;
changes to prevent recurrence;
vindication;
closure;
and a “day in court”. Civil Justice System Issues Paper: A summary of the themes raised by respondents
28th November 2016. Library National Inquiry.
It is good that the National Inquiry is also having to cover matters
already investigated by previous Inquiries with the most important the statement
made by Secretary of State Franck Dobson in November 1998 in introducing the
Government response to the Children’s Safeguarding review led by Sir William
Utting, People Like Us 1997 In the forward, Command Paper 4105, Mr Dobson said
“This wasn’t just a failure by
care staff. The children have been failed by social service managers, councils,
councillors, police, schools, neighbours, the Social Services Inspectorate,
Government Departments, Ministers and Parliament. Some people from all these
categories and institutions had worked hard to do a good job for these children
but many did not. The whole system had failed. “He ended by adding “There can
be no more excuses”
Part 4
I have explained to Mr Clare and others the overall nature of my involvement
in relation to Sunderland Council where I became Director of Social Services in 1991
and resigned which took effect early in 1992, having been Director of Social
Services at South Tyneside 1974-1990. I would have become a Director of Social
Services in 1971 on the recommendation of the Home Office had I not already
agreed a contract of employment with Cheshire County Council.) Within the terms
of the Confidentiality agreement signed in 1992, the High Court Injunction and
Order of 1993 and the raft of legal measures which restrict individual officers
disclosing information without prior approval I can state the following
Prior to taking up my
appointment at Sunderland I had been made aware that a serious matter had not
been reported to the police but not the details of that matter. Other Directors
of Social Services were present when this happened.
A couple of months after
taking up the appointment I was contacted by the Sunderland Echo concerning several
situations which included residential homes for children and a fax was sent in
relation one matter at the Witherwack House establishment. I immediately
advised the Department of Health and two of their officers investigated. Following discussion with the Department of
Health I could write to the Leader of the official opposition who had requested
an independent investigation that based on the investigation undertaken there
was no need for an independent investigation at that time. I had one subsequent
meeting with the Leader of the official opposition at her request and I had
further contact in 1997.
On return from a summer
holiday in 1991 I received an unopened communication from the Editor of the
Sunderland Echo and at a meeting with the Deputy Editor I was advised that the
contents had been confirmed with my predecessor.
I initiated further
investigation and as consequence of this investigation discovered that there
were two sets of files and on seeing the contents of the unofficial files and
given the circumstances at that time I contacted the local police commander (Northumbria
Police Ted Holder) and he arranged for me to meet the senior member of the
Criminal Investigations Department concerned with child protection matters-
Detective Chief Inspector Dave Wilson.
An investigation was agreed,
the local authority and the Department of Health was advised. The Department of
Health immediately arranged a meeting with Northumbria police and I immediately
put into effect the advice including subsequent written instruction from the
Department of Health. I am aware that my successor also received written
instruction from the Department of Health. I was provided with copies of these
letters in 2002 by Sunderland Solicitors Richard Reed who led several legal
firms in the Class Action. I have been advised all their documentation has been
destroyed.
In 1993 two persons were
convicted and one found not guilty in relation to those matters and which the
Crown prosecution described as akin to torture and where as part of the
authorised behaviour modification programme used at Witherwack (and other
establishments managed by Sunderland Council) children in care had been
required to physically assault other children. This is part of the court
proceedings. The impact on being
involved in harming other children in care as a child should not be
underestimated.
It is my understanding that a
similar situation occurred at the Detention Medomsley County Durham, an
establishment run by the former Home Office Prison department which has become
the responsibility of the Department of Justice and where the national Inquiry
has established an Investigation leading to a Hearing and opened an office at
nearby Darlington and agreed a contract to provide victims with support. Durham
Police and not Northumbria Police were responsible for the area in which
Medomsley was located). I believe children were committed to Medomsley by
courts from throughout the North and possibly from further away. Nearly1000
former children are reported to be involved in the police investigation. The
Probation and After care service/agency was the main social work service
involved.
It will be appreciated that as
in Sunderland and other areas abuse was also physical, psychological and
emotional and not sexual. It will be appreciated that beating children was commonplace
in family as well as institutional homes until recently and there are many
interests who would like to see physical punishment made lawful again. While the statutory inquiry is focussed on
child sexual abuse much of its work covers the prevention of all forms of
abuse, the care and after care provided and questions of accountability and
reparations apply to all forms of abuse.
During 1991 Sir Alan Levy and
former Children’s Officer and Deputy Home Office and Department of Heath Chief
Inspector/Social Services Adviser Barbara Kahan published their report on the
behaviour modification practices which had been introduced into homes provided
by Staffordshire County Council. These practices had been imported into social
service department with the abolition of the Approved School Order in 1969 and
attempted integration of approved schools into a new system of residential
homes with education on the premises. The problem was that because staff at all
levels lacked the training, experience and abilities to manage a behaviour
modification programme, it was inevitable the results in some establishments
would be horrendous. All social services authorities were asked to review care
programmes and ensure that harming practices were ended. The communication was addressed
to Chief Executives, Chief Legal Officers, Directors of Education and to Social
Services Directors with requests to undertake a review and to stop any
practices. I was misled about past and
ongoing practices by those undertaking the investigation except for the legal
officer appointed to assist in the review.
The following information is in
part already public knowledge. The then Vice Chairman of the Social Services
Committee was reported to have held a meeting a one home where his wife was
employed and told staff to ignore the instructions required by the Department
of Health. He was reported to be canvassing councillors for my dismissal
The following has not been
made public but is in the public interest particularly of victims. The
information was relayed to the Secretary of State for Social Services and
consideration was given to removing Child Care and protection function from the
local authority. The then Chairman of the Personnel Sub Committee told me to my
face he was seeking my sacking after the department had sacked a member of
staff in a residential care home for children for hitting a child in care and
his committee had reinstated the officer on appeal.
The following information has
not been made public but was instrumental in the Secretary of State being
recommended to remove the child care and protection functions from the Council
I had been asked by the
Chairman of the Social Services to submit a report on the future of residential
care for children to the Council and was then ordered not to make certain
recommendations first by the Chairman of the Committee and then by the Chief
Legal Officer of the Council. I advised the Department of Health and the Chief
Executive and Chief Legal Officer of the Council were summoned to the regional
office of the Department of Health and went away with “a suitcase of
documentation”.
I was already in conflict with
my employers over a separate matter which concerned residential homes for the
elderly and where it is not appropriate to go into any details other than I
took up the appointment assuming the local authority knew of my experience at
neighbouring South Tyneside. On appointment as Director of Social Services
designate for South Tyneside in 1973 I had been shocked about the state of the
residential care homes for the Elderly in South Tyneside and the reception home
for children and arranged for all members of the Social Services Committee and
colleagues in other departments to visit. The Council immediately ordered their
replacement and only control of capital funding by central government meant
that it was five years before every one of these homes was replaced by purpose
build homes for the elderly and the immediate substantial adaptation of another
building to form a new assessment centre for children admitted into long term
residential care. Admissions were reduced in advance to avoid the transfer of elderly
residents between establishments and there was national and local evidence that
to move residents between homes immediately adversely affected, including
premature death. South Tyneside also agreed to the closure of its residential
nursery but kept the establishment open, including fully staffed for the last
child for six months until a suitable family home could be found.
In 1992 after I resigned my position at
Sunderland I had direct correspondence with a Secretary of State on the issue
of closing Homes for the elderly following the publication of the Guardian article
on the more general reasons why I resigned. I have never been against a wide
range of public independent and private bodies providing care services and
South Tyneside had been at forefront of financially and managerial assisting other
bodies and agencies to provide accommodation and services for those subject to
domestic violence, for drug misuse, for children leaving care and for children
to be cared by those of the same religious belief. However, I and the Council
were strongly opposed to insisting that services had to be placed to tender under
the 1990 Community Care Act and on behalf of the Council had submitted four
papers to the House of Commons Social Services Committee and I provided
evidence at a public session of the Committee. At the meeting, I was in direct
conflict with the Association of Directors of Social Services which fully
supported privatization and it is noteworthy that none of those then involved
participated in the recent letter to the Guardian and representations to
Council leaders and members of Parliament at the decision to starve local
authority of funding, particularly for vulnerable adults in need and of all
ages.
Between 1971 when people with
no experience or interest in child care and protection imposed generic
management and generic social work practice on the Children’s Services, and
2006 when the division between adult and children’s services was made,
Directors and their senior staff were responsible for services for the elderly,
for those mental health and learning difficulties and for all forms of physical
disabilities in addition to responsibilities of child care and protection. For
the record, South Tyneside was one of the first authorities to create a
children’s department within the structure of the social services department
and in the 1992 Guardian article, I urged the formal management separation of
children’s services from adults and in a regional news programme a mouthpiece
for the Association of Directors of Social Services described my intervention
as unhelpful.
The situation was reached when
through the Chief Executive I offered my resignation as I believed it was in
the future best interests of the social services provided by Sunderland Council
to do so, and it was accepted. I have since debated if I could have been more
effective if I had continued. I also
want to emphasise that for close on two decades I was part of a system which
failed children in public care
I have continued to shy away
from personal publicity about what happened at Sunderland 25 years ago, because
what happened to me it is not important. What happened to children in care
there, and all over the UK, is.
I was also aware that my
resignation in 1992 was the beginning and not end my involvement and I advised several
appropriate parties of issues within the constraints of an agreed
confidentiality order. I agreed to a meeting with the District Auditor at his
request in relation to several wider issues. I agreed to a formal and recorded
interview with Northumbria Police and arising from what was disclosed to me, I
followed this up with three further statements and a documentation Index. I was
advised these were passed to the Prosecution Services. I also prepared a
comprehensive report submitted to the Secretary of State and her officials for
which I received written thanks early 1993 as being helpful in the continued
monitoring of Sunderland Social Services.
I had two meetings at the
request of a former Director of Social Services contracted by Sunderland
Council to review the matters I had raised and raised by the Department of
Health in the report of the Special Inspection, undertaken by Inspectors from
outside the Northern Region. I then had a meeting at the home of the Municipal
Editor of the Sunderland Echo who provided a copy of his draft report for me to
read and we discussed the pressures he was under to restrict his
recommendations to the present and the future. I had recommended that all the
files of all the children placed at Witherwack House should be reviewed by
social workers in the first instance and not just those of the three previous
three to four years as well as several other matters in different child care
homes.
This former Director of Social
also did the first report in relation to Islington Council and five years later
is reported to have told the Northern Echo in response to a query from the
Leader of the Opposition of Sunderland Council that he had destroyed his
documentation. After criminal proceedings in 1993 ended I alerted the
Department of Health of the need to ensure that all matters had been
appropriately investigated.
In 1997, as I subsequently
found out, a local solicitor, now a district Judge brought representatives for
group of former children, including Mr Clare to my home. They knocked on the
door, an asked for my help. I believed what they said and promised to consider
how best to help. At the second meeting I advised that I had written to the
Secretary of State reminding of past concerns and suggested that in the first
instance the complainants should be independently interviewed and the matters
raised independently investigated. Those who wished should have their concerns
referred to the police.
As already mentioned I wrote
and met with the investigating NSPCC officers and advised appropriate interests
of the potential for evidence contamination. It is important to emphasise that
the individual statements had been independently prepared and were not
subsequently changed, and that as reported to the Chris Mullin Sunderland South
MP Home affairs Committee, Northumbria Police were satisfied there was no
evidence of prior collusion. In the event the criminal trial did not take place
and the victims were left without any meaningful justice
I also had written
communication with the new Secretary of State following the 1997 General
Election and arising from information expressed concerns to my ongoing
Department of Heath contact who suggested in writing contacting the
Commissioner for Local Government. I contacted the local authority about this and
was advised in writing that my continued contact with former children was being
reported to the Council Liability Insurers. I prepared a submission to the
Solicitor General completed in 1998 and followed the written advice. I made a
submission to Liberty and then prepared written information for the appointed
pro bono lawyers. These lawyers in turn made application for Council Opinion
pro bono to the Bar Council which was agreed and provided. There was one meeting between the lawyers and
Sunderland Council.
Northumbria Police visited at
home for access to documentation in 1999 which I referred to the lawyers. I was
provided with legal advice and access to restricted information by the lawyers
and those representing the former children in the class action in 2002 in
preparation for being called to give evidence in the event of the action going
to trial. At the successful conclusion of the Class Action in 2003 I checked
that all those who wanted matters referred to the police had been given
opportunity and if there was further assistance required.
Sometime after this I was made
aware that the Journalist Nick Davies had placed online the three articles on
his 1997/8 investigation in national abuse in the UK and that an article which
featured Whistleblowers was being re-blogged on social media as it continues to
this day by Mr Clare and others.
I commenced a once or twice a year Googling of
my name which is a common one, including a local Taxi driver convicted of rape!
In the autumn of 2013, having
previously had a meeting with another representative of former Sunderland
Children in care in 2012 at his request, I Googled myself again and discovered
the Cathy Fox site for the first time, together with whatdotheyknow.com. I
spoke with the Information officer for Sunderland Council and in the light of
what was said wrote to the Chief Executive. I also wrote to Information
officers at the Department of Health and Education and was surprised at the
ignorance of one department who appeared to have no knowledge of the existence
let alone role of the former National Social Work Advisory Services/Social
Services Inspectorate. The present Secretary at the Home Office has admitted to
the Home Affairs Committee that his department were not aware of the role of
the Home Office Children’s Department Inspectorate and which included the Inspection of all
forms of residential care homes, excluding the Approved Schools.
On January 2nd 2014
I met at Kings Cross station and spent several hours at the Parcel’s Office
hostelry with two members of a group which Deputy Leader Tom Watson and an
original member of the Prime Minister’s first Inquiry were associated.
I have little politically in common
with the political party of the Prime Minister but her repeated demands for
transparency about what has happened to children in public care or at the hands
of those involved in public institutions is something I respect.
While I was away visiting
relatives over Christmas and New Year I received information via Twitter from a
third party that the Leader of Sunderland Council had visited the home of Mr Clare
while on political party business, and is alleged to have said to him that the
Council proposed to request the lifting of the High Court Order(s) in order
that the truth of what happened could become public. A copy of a subsequent invitation to Mr Clare
for a Leader’s meeting was provided via Twitter. I have written to the Leader and Chief of
Sunderland Council advising of my willingness to continue to assist the Council
if required.
No comments:
Post a Comment