The following article by Camille Cavendish appeared in the Times (here) on 13th December.
Two MPs have put down an early day motion in the House of Commons to bring attention to what they believe is a miscarriage of justice. It notes that a man named Charles Roy Taylor has been sent to prison for 20 months for being in contact with his stepgrandson. It “wonders if this is a good use of scarce prison resources; and calls for the Secretary of State for Justice to consider whether he should be released for Christmas”. Jack Straw no doubt has bigger things on his mind. And no story like this is ever as simple as it looks. But it deserves attention.
Charles Roy Taylor is a 71-year-old with a heart condition. He knew that a jail sentence was the penalty he might pay if he did not take steps to avoid his stepgrandson. But this seems desperately unfair. The teenager, whom we shall call John, has been in care since his mother died of an overdose. He has been phoning his grandparents and running away to see them for some time. In the end, social services became concerned that the grandparents were “undermining the care plan” by continuing to see John. It does not appear to be clear to the grandparents what the care plan is. But it does not seem to include them, even though they could presumably be John's first port of call when he leaves the care system at 18.
It is not the local authority's fault that this child had a difficult childhood. In taking responsibility for him, social workers were doing their best. Neither he nor his grandparents sound like the easiest people to deal with. But as in so many cases of this kind, bitterness between the family and the authorities appears to have escalated into a ludicrous situation, which simply cannot be in the best interests of the child.
After a great deal of argy-bargy that I cannot go into for legal reasons, Mr Taylor last year gave an undertaking not to communicate with John until he was 18. But asking a man not to pick up the phone to a child, not to take him in when he turns up at the front door, is a harsh demand. It is tantamount to asking him to deny that the child exists, when what that child may need most is attention.
In stalking cases, when Person A is ordered to avoid Person B, it is usually at the explicit request of Person B, who fears assault. In this case, Person B was apparently desperate to see his grandparents. He seems to see them as his best hope. So in whose interests was such an order? If he has broken his undertaking, Mr Taylor has surely been responding as humanely as most of us would. A jail sentence seems wholly disproportionate.
When I first learnt of this case I felt that there must be more to it. That perhaps the grandparents were suspected of abuse. I can find no evidence of any such allegation. Indeed, the authorities initially seemed happy to leave them in contact with John. What appears to have happened is that the exchanges between the family and social workers became increasingly bitter, all of whom no doubt believed themselves to be in the right.
The council cannot comment on individual cases. It will say only that “Mr Taylor was sentenced by the High Court after he breached a court order”. It cannot comment on John's treatment in care. John seems unhappy. He has apparently asked to be discharged. But his voice can only be heard within the system, a system he seems determined to rebel against.
There is a growing campaign on the internet to release Mr Taylor. This has two parts. The first is that a 20-month jail sentence is preposterous when the prisons are so overcrowded that dangerous criminals are being released early. The second is that Mr Taylor was allegedly committed to jail in a “secret court”. This seems unlikely. But it is an allegation that is made frequently. Legally, you cannot send someone to jail in a secret court. In practice, it is questionable whether a judge sitting in a family court from which press and public are excluded, who declares the court open for a few minutes to pronounce sentence, is really “open”.
This matters, because the view of the legal profession increasingly seems to be that the less we know the better. The justification for keeping family courts closed, despite the recommendations of the Commons Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, is to protect children's privacy. Yet this argument is no longer confined to the family courts. It is increasingly being trotted out in criminal cases too.
In the past month, one court has ruled that the defendants in a witchcraft trial, who were alleged to have done unspeakable things to children, could not be named in case this led to the identification of their victims. Another court banned publication of anything about a mother accused of poisoning her child with salt, in case the information affected her surviving child. The Times has recently succeeded in overturning yet another ruling, that a man who pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children could not be named in case his relatives might suffer. The Court of Appeal found that the man should be named, and that the attempts to restrict the proceedings were invalid.
The law must not become a secret process. Some lawyers seem convinced that the media want to identify vulnerable children, but it is always possible to write these stories without doing so. Seeing that justice is done is a fundamental part of law.
What is sad is that our elaborate system of child protection, which is designed to put children first, has sometimes become a way of avoiding accountability. The two MPs are right to ask whose interests Mr Taylor's jailing serves. Presumably, the last thing John wants is for his grandfather to be in jail. They are both victims of a system that asks us to take on trust that it knows best. But prison is surely the wrong place for Charles Roy Taylor.
Art master Matthew George who was jailed for 10 year for allegedly abusing pupils at Kerelaw is back home after being given leave to appeal his conviction for torturing pupils at a residential school.
Three judges gave him leave to make an appeal, based on the conduct of the police investigation and the credibility of the victims' evidence.
George, who had spent 22 months behind bars and was not eligible for parole until 2011.
Source: Sunday Mail (extract)
The highest single payment of the £180,300 paid out in compensation was £38,000 for psychiatric injury caused by the false allegation of a pupil and lack of support from the employers.
Among the other successful claims was £1,750 for a teacher who sustained serious damage after a kick to the groin, and another who received £2,300 after a punch in the face caused a fractured cheekbone and broken nose.
Interim payments have also been made to a teacher who suffered psychiatric injury after an assault, and another who suffered internal injury and post-traumatic shock after being kicked by a pupil. A further £70,000 was paid in legal costs to employees.
Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the EIS, Scotland's largest teaching union, described the amount paid out as "extremely worrying".
He added: "The number of incidents remains far too high and the amount of compensation paid out is actually up slightly on last year.
"Teachers, in common with many other public-service workers, are far too often on the receiving end of assaults in the course of their work.
"Employers have a duty to assess and minimise the risk facing teachers, and also to send a clear message that violent conduct, physical or verbal, will not be tolerated."
As well as attacks by pupils, teachers also suffered psychiatric illness as a result of their job.
Mr Smith said: "Occupational stress is a major problem facing teachers and lecturers. The growth in the number of cases involving psychiatric injury and stress-related illness should provide a stark warning to employers that they must take account of their employees' mental, as well as physical, wellbeing.
"Stress-related illness and other injuries to mental health are extremely serious and can take a huge toll on the individual concerned."
Also in the list of payments was a PE teacher who received £8,000 after losing his voice because of "environment/ acoustic conditions".
Meanwhile, falls were revealed to have generated the most payments for teachers. A teacher was awarded £20,000 after a slip in a corridor, while carrying a large box, caused hand and wrist injuries and another received £1,500 after a back injury caused by the collapse of a piano chair.
One teacher received £8,500 after slipping on a wet floor, and another was given £5,000 when a trip over a schoolbag caused facial injuries and a detached retina.
A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said: "A slip, trip or a fall is the most common accident in almost every area of life, whether it be in the home, out and about or in the workplace.
"A school is a place of work as well as being an educational establishment and sometimes a fall will have very serious consequences, particularly in areas where there is equipment lying about such as a school."
Liz Smith, the Scottish Conservatives' schools spokeswoman, said: "The teaching profession has to be protected, but there has to be a little common sense about what is an accident, what is an attack, and what quite frankly is somebody just trying it on.
"Yes there are accidents. School safety procedures have improved a lot, but people will try it on for all sorts of compensation."
The figures, published by EIS, show payments made by employers and criminal compensation paid to EIS members in the last year.
AWARDS MADE TO STAFF IN 2007
• Teacher slipped in corridor, carrying large box, injuries to hand and wrist: £20,000.
• PE teacher, voice loss due to environmental/ acoustic conditions: £8,000.
• Psychiatric injury as a result of being prosecuted following false allegations and lack of support from employer: £38,000.
• Psychiatric injury following assault: £2,000 criminal interim award.
• Internal injury and post-traumatic shock due to assault, kicked by pupil: £1,000 interim.
• Teacher punched in face, cheekbone fractured and nose broke: £2,300.
• Injury to shoulder when hit by a cupboard door which fell off its hinges: £3,000.
• Tripped over school bag, facial injuries and detached retina £5,000.
• Teacher struck by lever from trampoline caused cut to jaw and lost fillings: £2,500.
• Teacher kicked in groin, sustaining serious damage: £1,750.
• TV trolley collapsing while being pushed by teacher causing fall, bruising and soft-tissue damage to arm: £3,000.
• Injured back following collapse of piano chair: £1,500.
• Slip due to snow being brought in and floor wet, fracturing wrist: £8,500.
• Fall from ladder during preparations for school play, fractured leg: £10,000.
• Slip on litter in stairwell, injuries to knee £750.
• Teacher tripped on loose carpet, injuries to lower back: £9,000.
• Teacher tripped in pot hole, injury to ankle: £2,500.
Source: The Scotsman
The bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, N.C., reinstated the Rev. Albert James Gondek as pastor of a parish Sunday, saying an investigation had cleared the priest of allegations by a Delaware man that he was sexually abused by the priest more than 40 years ago at a summer camp in Maryland.
Gondek and Charlotte Bishop Peter J. Jugis were to meet with parishioners of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Lexington, N.C., after the 10:30 Mass.
"It is a great joy to return Father Al to ministry," Jugis said in a prepared statement. "The Diocese of Charlotte will make every effort to restore Father Gondek's good name and reputation. While this case does not diminish the suffering that sexual abuse causes people in our society, it is proof that the system in our church works to protect everyone." (more)
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Kris Hanns, an independent member of the South Australian Parliament who is also a lawyer specialising in criminal defence, has called on Parliament to set up an inquiry into how the Special Investigations Unit mishandled child sex abuse allegations relating to Tom Easling. Kris has issued the following statement:
When Parliament resumes in February I will call for a Parliamentary inquiry into how the Special Investigations Unit of the Department of Families & Communities handled child sex abuse allegations against public servant Tom Easling.
Mr Easling was cleared of sex abuse charges as a foster carer. However, serious questions were publicly raised as to how competently officers of the Department’s Special Investigations Unit handled the investigation. The seriousness of child sex abuse allegations, and the stigma that Mr Easling must carry for the rest of his life, make it critical that any investigation be conducted strictly in accordance with law and best practice. Parliament needs to examine how the Department of Families & Communities’ Special Investigations Unit got it so wrong.
The following article by Steve Bird appeatred in the Times on 20th December 2007
The latest rape allegation to attract intense publicity has raised again the question of whether accused men should be granted the same anonymity as their accuser, until convicted.
For years campaigners have said that men wrongly accused of such a crime never live down the slur on their characters. Meanwhile, some men have had to endure years in prison on remand only to be cleared after a trial. For celebrities and sports stars who live under the scrutiny of the media and their fans, being accused of rape can devastate their careers.
Under current law anyone claiming that they have been raped or sexually assaulted is guaranteed anonymity for life. It can be lifted only if they choose to waive the right or if a judge rules that they should be named because they have deliberately made a false allegation, which would usually result in a criminal charge such as perverting the course of justice.
While the Government has rejected calls to give anonymity to men who are accused of rape, it remains determined to try to boost the low rape conviction rate. With only 5 per cent of rape allegations resulting in a conviction, ministers are determined not to deter women from turning to the police after an attack.
However, a series of cases have illustrated how some women have hidden behind the anonymity laws to try to damage men for whom they hold a grudge. In September Diane Berriman, 31, was jailed for eight months after falsely claiming that she had been raped twice by a married man, and again by another man.
Police discovered she was a serial liar, but not before Paul Cook and Trevor Hirst both spent time in prison awaiting trial. After admitting perverting the course of justice and harassment, it was claimed that Berriman had made the false allegations because her own relationship had collapsed. Mr Cook, 54, said that he should have been given the same anonymity as his tormentor had been initially.
In 2001 Neil and Christine Hamilton were falsely accused of rape by Nadine Milroy-Sloan, a trainee lecturer. Milroy-Sloan was convicted of perverting the course of justice in 2003 and jailed for three years. In January this year the daughter of a church minister who made false allegations of rape against four men was jailed for two years. Abigail Gibson, 22, made the claims against a colleague, an ex-boyfriend, a stranger and her father.
Jurors Speak Out
Posted by News Editor
Monday, December 31, 2007
There are several reports in the UK Press regarding the case of Keren Henderson a childminder who many believe has been wrongly convicted for killing a baby in her care.
Fraudsters have been warned they won't get away with making false allegations to police after a woman was fined for claiming her car had been stolen.
The 27-year-old woman, from the town centre area of Hartlepool, was handed an £80 fixed penalty for wasting police time after claiming her Ford Puma vehicle had been stolen earlier this month.
Investigations from police discovered the allegations were false, and the woman admitted the information she had given was wrong before any insurance claims were made.
Detective Inspector Keith Groves, of Hartlepool Police, warned anyone thinking of trying to carry out similar scams in the hope of claiming insurance money would be caught.
Det Insp Groves said: "If you falsely report a crime, you will be fined for wasting police time.
"Because our crime figures are so low at the moment, every single report to us is fully investigated. In the past, while investigations were always thorough, some things may have gone unnoticed – but that is certainly not the case now.
"This particular incident with the woman reporting the stolen car was looked at, and it quickly became apparent the allegations were not true.
"It hadn't got as far as her claiming on the insurance or anything like that, because we would have been looking at fraud charges then.
"She was brought into the police station over the weekend and issued with a fixed penalty for wasting police time."
Other crimes which are reported include mobile phone theft and house burglary, with insurance claims generally the main incentive.
Det Insp Groves added: "These reports are not uncommon. Mobile phones being reported stolen happens a lot, but we work closely with the network providers to discover whether the claims are true or not.
"People can also claim they have been burgled, or that some property from their home has been taken.
"The motive behind these claims is to make a claim on the insurance.
Each report has a different value in terms of money, obviously someone claiming for a stolen car will hope to get more than someone claiming a stolen TV.
"The money has to come from somewhere and has to be paid out.
"People think these type of crimes are victimless, but they take up the resources of the police as we carry out the investigations.
"While that is happening, genuine crimes are not being dealt with.
"The message is that we are doing everything we can to ensure the crimes that are reported to us are true, and we continue to do our utmost to detect the crime that is genuinely reported."
Source: Hartlepool Mail
A juror has expressed doubts a childminder jailed for shaking an 11-month old baby to death was guilty.
Speaking on BBC Five Live, the juror in the trial of Keran Henderson said a "miscarriage of justice had occurred".
Henderson, 43, of Iver Heath, Bucks, was last month jailed for three years for the manslaughter of Maeve Sheppard on a majority verdict.
But complicated medical evidence had prevented the jury from making informed decisions, the juror claimed.
At the end of a five week trial, and deliberating for more than 12 hours, the jury at Reading Crown Court found Henderson guilty of the baby's manslaughter.