Child Abuse Northumbria Police area 1960-2003 (3)

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 1       Criminal procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Code of Practice paragraph 3.4.  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.